Super Nanny 911?

I know that this blog is generally reserved for health and other related topics - but I feel strongly the need to talk about this topic.

Growing up, and before I had a child... I had seen many shows such as Super Nanny and Nanny 911. I adored many of the nannies, thinking that the majority of their methods worked fantastic and that their strict, albeit "loving" methods were just the thing to do when you had kids.

Even after becoming a mother I did not see anything wrong with their methods until doing research myself. It was hard to reject my preconceived notions and felt somewhat set in my opinion of their methods being non-harmful and definitely helpful. It was a post that sparked my interest, I honestly could not remember where I read it or who it was by - but it basically came to the summation that the methods used in such shows are based in terrible methods which do not follow science and can actually be detrimental; that they contradict modern child psychology.

It took me a few days of going through the motions. It was almost like grieving those preconceived notions because they were what I knew. However like always, I know I must reject what I had previously known until I research things and come to a conclusion on my own. At first I denied that there could possibly be a problem in their methods. Of course not! I mean, they worked, right? Then I felt a tweak angry, why were people picking on these nice, talented ladies? What could they possibly be doing that was so terrible? Then I bargained with myself - well if I just let the doubt go, then I can go on believing that there's nothing wrong with their methodology and I can employ them myself when my daughter gets older - guilt free! I then felt like, "why should I even bother reading this stuff? It only makes me feel awful and question myself! It also brings negativity to me and I mean, why do I need more negativity in my life?" After a few hours of that I solemnly resigned myself to doing the research I knew was required to be informed of the topic. After just poking around another couple of hours over the next few days and thinking about what I had read, I accepted the fact that their methods were not scientific and perhaps may be damaging - at least.

Let me explain a bit.

Every week a nanny (usually British) will come to a household in turmoil - with screaming kids, disobedience, sometimes violence and worse. The parents are usually portrayed as clueless, mindless morons who shouldn't be raising kids. Then the prim and proper, exotic and knowledgeable nanny steps in to employ methods to "fix" the parents and children.

First off - they are trying to make you okay with a stranger entering this family's home and taking control of their lives with imposing methods that you cannot argue with. Is this not priming for totalitarianism? Making it more of a household theme? More acceptable in the masses? Honestly, what these people don't need is control or a stranger telling them what to do. They need guidance and the resources to educate themselves to find something that works for them outside of the "norm" and outside of what the nannies employ. The show does nothing but teach that the parent is more important and should have "control", that the child should just bend to the will of their parents or be broken, and that parenting is for the parents to live their lives conveniently...not for actually raising a child. Do you get what is wrong with that picture? Parenting for the parent, instead of for the child? Teaching to put the needs and wants of the parents first in order to raise children "effectively" is twisted and disgusting.

In many instances the nannies make the parents feel ignorant, stupid, and like they can't and shouldn't parent their own kids the way they think is okay. They rub the parents' faces in it, with things like "well you called us, remember, because you're moronic. So you better listen to me because I know better, and I have all the power." The nannies make it as if the parents should follow their word to the letter without any deviation - and I have seen them physically force the parents to do so. Um, what? Assault, much? Not to mention that the verbal and physical derision and disrespect to the parents is not going to teach the children that their parents are capable and their "superior" as the show aims, nor is it going to teach them to respect or listen to their parents. In fact, it is going to teach them that their parents are morons and that they, the child, must know better than their parents because they had to have someone come help them...if they needed help, why listen to them in the first place?...I mean if they're doing it all wrong, then the child must know best for themselves after all. Do you see where this is leading?

So, why do we blindly accept that those families are going to interact "normally" with a camera crew sitting in every room of their house, and a stranger watching their every move? If you have a child - you know - you must, that each child will react differently to the situation...and that many times the child will attempt to act out, show off, feel strange or encroached upon (as there is obviously no privacy, which can and will affect a child's behavior), and will try and communicate this through their actions. Usually - this means temper tantrums. Big ones. Temper tantrums are a normal childhood behavior - it is the child learning to vent their emotions effectively, even if it is annoying and inconveniencing to us as parents. Our society looks down their noses at it now - where and when that started I am unsure...but I am positive that it is doing nothing but emotionally stunting our children as we try and force them to be "civilized" and "polite" by not having a tantrum or crying.

As children - especially toddlers and babies - we do not have the words to express our feelings and frustrations well enough to vent to someone verbally. That in itself is incredibly frustrating even to adults - who sometimes can't pinpoint or find the right words either, am I right? Now, imagine not even knowing the words to express your emotions - what will you revert to? You are going to be angry and frustrated, especially if the one or two people you expect to try and understand tell you not to communicate with them. That is essentially what a tantrum is. Whatever emotion they are having a tantrum over - is still an attempt to communicate their feelings...sadness, anger, frustration, uncomfortable-ness, sickness, disappointment, etc. etc. That is good. That is normal. It is natural, and it means the child is attempting to broaden their spectrum of communication (in the majority of cases.) When a child has a tantrum, they are asking for understanding first and foremost, and then help. They want their caretakers to understand their feelings and address them, even if there is nothing they can actually do. We want the same as adults, don't we? Among our friends, family, and spouses? Understanding and compassion? Ultimately and annoyingly, we must realize that these shows must have one hell of an editing team. There is no way that they radically make a happy home in 7 days, complete with cooperative, "polite/civilized", communicative, etc children and parents who know just what to do. I'm sorry - but that is not reality especially with the circumstances of having strangers in your house at all hours watching every move. If I were one of those parents, I would be pissed and bull angry with how the nannies treated me and my children. I would not be smiling and thanking them about how they've made life all unicorns and rainbows again. Yet, the producers would have you believe that the nanny fed them sparkles and sunshine and that the family shit out all of the unicorns and rainbows of the world.

Then, at the end of the show, the family is rewarded. Such things like exotic vacations, trips to Disney World, new houses, money, etc. are given to the families as "reward" for their behavior... oh, I mean their "hard work" (ie. listening to the nanny and doing exactly as the nanny says, putting up with the abuse.) *insert eyeroll* All of this undermines the parents' confidence in their abilities - which is very obviously part of the problem, or else why would they phone a t.v. show to be publicly humiliated? It is the same for the parents as it is for the kids - the parents consider their kids "bad" and so they call the nanny to "fix" them; and the nanny considers the parents "bad" and employs their methods to "fix" the parents, so that they in turn can "fix" their kids. Not very logical, is it? Not very helpful, is it? If the parents aren't made to feel confident, understood, and capable...then they will never be able to parent their kids as is necessary because they won't have the confidence to do so; even if they continue to use the nanny's methods. In much the same way that children who do not feel confident, understood, and capable will not function emotionally well in the long-term even if their behavior "improves". It is just a one big cycle.

Let me break apart some of the so-called "methods" and some obvious things that these nannies "overlook" (ie. leave out, and I will explain why.)

Each episode is treated as if the child(ren) is/are the enemy, and that they need to be conquered and tamed like wild animals, the control to be put completely in the adults' hands. However, children are not wild animals and they are not our enemy (how can you honestly consider any child, much less your own, your enemy over their age-appropriate behaviors?)

1. Strict scheduling. Often the nannies employ this "method" of helping the children cope and somehow regulate their behavior. While it is true, children learn through patterns and sometimes thrive under schedules...strict scheduling actually will not help your child in almost all cases. Forcing your child to eat when they are not hungry, sleep when they are not tired, and to a certain degree force them to do things that they don't want to do is not going to cut their tantrums and improve their behavior. It is going to make them angry, frustrated, resentful, and depressed. Of course they are going to act out! Try having someone point at you each morning at 9 am and say "eat" and then "play" then point at you at 11 am and say "sleep" and then "eat" again at 2 pm, then "play" until you must again "eat" at 6pm, and "sleep" at 8 pm. Even as adults we cannot wire our own clocks to be so stringent - forcing a child into such a schedule "no matter what" (as the nannies enforce) is not going to help. A loose schedule might - wake up around the same time, and eat around the same time if they are hungry, and nap about the same time if they are tired. As adults we do not eat around the same time every day in the majority of cases, we don't go to bed every night at the exact same time. We wouldn't like it if someone expected us to! As parents it is right for us to make sure our children are eating, playing, sleeping, learning enough...but there is a line, a boundary, that we ourselves would not like crossed. Being a child does not mean that boundary is okay to be crossed, and being a parent doesn't mean we get to cross it.

2. A list of "Rules" that usually are "don'ts." Rules are okay. Every child needs boundaries, but when do we, as parents...go overboard and actually prevent our children from learning experiences and such consequences? It suffices to say "Don't run inside of the house." However, it is even better to say "It is better if you could act calmly and walk inside because you can .... (somehow hurt yourself, someone else, break something, etc.) If you would like to run we can go in the yard/take a trip to the park/dance the wiggles out." See, one implies totally dictatorship - you are in control and your child has no voice in the matter (I am not saying that they should be given a say in certain situations such as running in areas of the house; that could be dangerous...instead I am talking about undermining the child's sense of choice and self as an individual.) The first also lacks reason, it doesn't give any logic as to why this could be bad, ie. while you're cooking in the kitchen they could run into the stove, or you (and injure you), or fall if you are mopping, etc. It is just a command, a demand. It implies your child is incapable of understanding logic and reason - a fact that is disproved every time a child asks you "why?" as they are capable of understanding why and when there is a time and place for certain behaviors. A child who does not feel as if they get a choice and does not understand why they are not supposed to do something is not going to be able to make choices later in life. If you don't learn to make choices as a child, it will lead to indecisiveness as an adult; as research has proved time and time again. The second offers not only an acceptable alternative, but does not make your child feel as if you are bossing them around (even if that is what you are doing indirectly, you are not making your child feel as if they are inferior, which will again cause anger and resentment and acting out.) Posting rules like I demonstrated only demands order and enforcement - which as adults we would consider cruel and ridiculous. Helping a child develop a sense of others and things (what effects his actions will have) is going to help him understand when and why a behavior is - or isn't - appropriate. Not blind obedience.

3. Encouraging inappropriate expectations based on a child's age. Expecting all children from ages 1 year to 10 years not to throw a tantrum is condescendingly arrogant. It is normal for children to have tantrums up through 7 years old, sometimes more based upon their maturity and individuality. See above for why. Expecting all children to apply a certain behavior (such as sitting still or being quiet for prolong periods of time) without regard for their age, maturity, and individual personalities and capabilities is not only ridiculous...it's irritating. Most 2 year olds cannot sit still or be quiet, and that is normal!! I can't believe that a two year old must sit on a "naughty step" based on the nanny's ludicrous idea over what is behaviorally appropriate for that child without knowledge of child psychology and individuality of the child (after day 1 she makes expectations, hardly long enough to remember the child's middle name, I'd say!) Sometimes the parents go into the show not realizing that some of their children's "bad" behaviors are developmentally appropriate and do not need remedying. A shift of perspective often "remedies" many "bad" behaviors. The show only plays up the stupidity of America by playing to this ignorance. You wouldn't expect a 6 month old baby to walk or talk, because it's not on their developmental timeline. A 9 month old baby may say a word or two or take a few steps, and some babies don't walk or talk until closer to two years old. There is always deviation in individual children. If you have a child - this should be a huge DUH for you. People need to realize when that sometimes you need to just count to five - your child isn't ready to "use his words" instead of tantruming at 2 years old.

4. Time outs/Naughty spots - and apologizing. As the parent we sometimes need "time outs" or a few minutes to gather our emotions and thoughts sometimes. However, enforcing "time outs" and making them sit on a "naughty stoop" or in a "naughty corner"... for a child does the exact opposite. It shames them, it humiliates them, and it doesn't teach them why what they did was wrong, or impolite, or "bad." It teaches them that if they do a certain behavior etc., they are going to be penalized and humiliated. In the show this often means that the reason for the behavior doesn't matter - the root cause is irrelevant. There's a lot I can put on this. Under no circumstances is it okay to humiliate or degrade a child for any reason, no matter their behavior. That is all a time-out is. It's an imposed time-frame where you tell your child they are bad and watch them suffer for it, and by doing so enforce that punitive behaviors for those who we deem "bad" is okay...even necessary. No decent parent wants to punish their child for any reason, nor humiliate them...and honestly to Bob many don't realize that that's all a time-out is. Brainwashed by popular expectations and trendy methods of discipline - they think that it is actually helpful and good for their child. That's another topic - however this show enforces that it is okay to humiliate your child, make them feel inferior, and "break" them if you have to. Then forcing them to apologize - without regard to why they behaved a certain way, did a certain thing, etc. is showing them insincerity. If they don't feel sorry - it is because they don't truly understand why what they did was inappropriate. Forcing them to apologize won't teach them why. Neither will forcing them into a time-out. What will teach them why a certain thing was inappropriate? Natural consequences. A time-out is artificial. In the adult world, we don't get time-outs for shouting or running or staying up or being late. A good way to apply natural consequences is this situation... a four year old boy knows that being nice is important (say one of the rules is to Play Nicely), but his 6 year old sister keeps taking his favorite train. After a 5th time of asking for his train back, he hits his sister on the head with a block out of frustration and feels bad that he hurt her. She drops the train and runs crying to a parent. The parent comes in, and asks both of them what happened. The boy tells that he asked her for his train back many times and she ignored him; and she admits that she didn't want to share the train. Here's the thing ..the train belongs to the boy, and in the real world we don't have to share our car, or our house, or anything because someone wants us to.  Forcing the boy to share it would be artificial punishment. Forcing the boy into a time out for hitting his sister is also an artificial punishment. A parent might say "I'm sorry you felt so frustrated and ignored. However you know the rule, by choosing to hit your sister Tommy, you choose to play in your room for the rest of the day alone, because you know that it hurts and is not okay. If you cannot play nicely you have to play alone." But that same parent would turn and say "Sally, by choosing to ignore your brother and taking his things without asking, you hurt his feelings and violated his privacy to play with his own toys, so you choose to give Tommy one of your favorite toys to play with for the rest of the day. You know that the train was Tommy's and that you should not have been playing with it when Tommy wanted it." And addressing them both, "If one of you is not acting appropriately, or you get angry and don't know what to do, come see one of us and we will help you." This way, Sally understands why what she did was inappropriate and Tommy understands why what he did was inappropriate - neither is made to feel shamed or humiliated and, both not only know that there are consequences.... but that their parents are there to talk to and help them when they don't know what to do about something and will be fair no matter what. There are other ways to handle this other than the way I described, however it is just an example about what is more effective the majority of the time. Positive reinforcement, understanding, and natural consequence will work! A child is not always going to follow the rules - that is normal too. They push boundaries because that is normal psychological child behavior. Being too harsh and unfair will only make them want to push them more. Forcing them to apologize, especially when they are not sorry makes them feel as if they need to be sorry for sticking up for themselves (such as in Tommy's case) and teaches them insincerity...to say something because it is "proper" rather than meaningful. That will lead to tons of issues later, they will learn to suppress sincerity and thoughtfulness.

5. Rewards to "balance" their discipline. I'm going to run with Alfie Kohn's example. If a child receives praise for each and every mouthful of food he eats to please his parents - he is going to over-feed himself for that praise. A child always wants to please their parents and setting unrealistic expectations "eat your entire plate of food, Ralph!" when Ralph can only eat half his food, and then praising him for each and every extra spoonful past half - is poor "reinforcement." It is teaching the child that it's okay if they're suffering, or need to suffer so long as they are pleasing their parent. They will go for that praise no matter the cost to themselves. Why is this okay?

6. Disregard the child's feelings. In one episode, a child was playing "cleaning" with the outdoor hose. The mother just walked over and said "You're done!" When the child protested the mother meanly turned off the water. The child kicked over a wagon (in clear frustration and anger) and Supernanny said "JUST over the water being turned off?" No, dear, he was upset because his mother talked to him like the family dog, ignored his attempts at communication and emotional connection, and was incredibly cold. Not actually because the water was turned off. His mother could have come out and said "Honey, the water's been running for too long. Why don't you come help me/do this instead?" If the kid wanted to "clean", why not give him a "big boy" job of cleaning the windows with water in a spray bottle (supervised, of course)? Why not say "Honey, if you want to clean, why don't you help me pick up your toys and clean your room?" If you don't teach your child how to clean and have houseskills, but expect them to know how to clean their room by themselves at 4 years old, you're going to get no where fast. Again with the unrealistic expectations.

7. Sleep "training". Sleep "training" is very controversial in all parenting circles. However, medical evidence is clear that children should not be left to CIO (cry it out) for any amount of time, as it stunts them emotionally. When you leave your child in their crib, bed, or room alone when all they want is some form of comfort (whether suddenly or in "steps" as "Supernanny" suggests)...you are not teaching them to "self-soothe". You are teaching them that the one person they look up to and can count on - isn't going to help them. That person isn't going to come to their rescue. So give up. By not giving eye contact or talking or touching, you are teaching them that you are going to watch them suffer, that they can cry for comfort again and again, but you don't care. It doesn't matter if you're sitting next to them or in the next room. It is the same exact message. Forcing a child to wean from their comfort zone isn't going to teach them independence...and why the hell do we expect 2-6 year olds to be independent anyways? A child again, has his own developmental timeline. A child is dependent - that is what a child is! We can't set unrealistic expectations of any kind (especially not sleep-wise) and then bitch because our child isn't independent enough and you don't have your freedom. Sorry - that's parenthood. Why do we want our kids to grow up so fast? They're only little once. This time will pass. And it will only take a blink.


The British Medical Journal (BMJ) has evaluated Jo Frost's methods. They found it did nothing but harm. It didn't make parents less stressed and didn't "improve" a child's behavior.


With that all said, upon leaving the show this is what Jo Frost had to say about her leaving the show and about her replacement. "She has teachers who are the real ones who do the work. She sits behind a desk. Until you have dealt with the sick and the mess of children, it is very hard to advise anyone else. I have been a nanny since I was 14. I've been in the trenches. What qualifies her to offer advice?" Wow, way to go out classy and dignified!! (Or...not.) First off, I think this statement says all it needs to about Jo Frost's character. She's prone to jealousy, spite, rudeness, and has a superiority complex. Children don't just produce "sick" and "messes," they bring joy and love like nothing else in this world can. How you choose to look at parenting really shows your character as a person. "Trenches?!" Since when is there a war against children? You aren't battling them. You are cooperating with and guiding them to try and help them become a happy, well-balanced person. You aren't trying to teach them blind obedience. If you are, there is something wrong there. What qualifies Deborah Tillman (her replacement) is that she doesn't think she's Nanny Goddess of the All-Knowing Discipline, where children should just bow down and obey her every command. She actually realizes that discipline is more than obedience, and is a concerted family effort to find constructive and healthy methods. That's what makes her qualified. She's willing to learn different ways and adapt to help each and every family, rather than employing her dry, harmful, across-the-board methods. Why is it Jo's call over whether or not someone else is "qualified?" It's not her business anymore. Bye bye.

I beg each and every parent not to listen to these shows. Watch them, and know what not to do. They are nothing more than reality tv shows trying to indoctrinate the population with terrible parenting methods and political ideas of what is proper and acceptable.

What is Hepatitis B? Why NOT vaccinate for it? [Part Two]

This post is going to focus on reasons NOT to vaccinate for Hepatitis B. 

How is this vaccine created? 

"A portion of DNA from the hep B virus is integrated into the DNA of some yeast cells that live in a solution of soy, sugar, amino acids, and minerals. The yeast cells then use this DNA to generate a protein that makes up the outer capsule of the hep B virus. The yeast cells are broken up, and the hep B virus is filtered out and purified. Aluminum is then added to help the vaccine work better. It is put in a saline solution. ... Recombivax HB uses formaldehyde to purify the vaccine. Engerix-B does not.

 Note: Adults receive a double dose of hep B vaccine, so each adult dose contains 500 micrograms of aluminum." [3]

"However, the greatest concern about recombinant DNA vaccines is that they may cause the immune system to produce antibodies, which in turn attack the body and cause health problems. Much is still not known about the effects of recombinant DNA vaccines." [4] 

Well, that sounds okay, right? Not so bad. NOT. Very little is known about this type of vaccine (recombinant) and any potential long-term effects of it. It is still a relatively new type of production without hardly any studies done on the potential repercussions. Basically, a recombinant vaccine is a vaccine that is genetically engineered/altered. The potential ethical issues and potential catastrophic fallout with a vaccine that is partially genetically engineered is enormous. It creates a situation where scientists can realistically tinker with DNA and alter genomes...and we just don't know what the long-term effects of it are on DNA or RNA, both human and virus. It is even proposed that this is the method in which Herpes Virus Type 6 crossed over into human telomeres (homologous recombination). I think it is important to think of the possible ramifications this can cause as far as autoimmune disorders and autoimmune reactions. From what we do know, improper homologous recombination can lead to cancer, cancer-related illnesses (such as Bloom's Syndrome), and fetal chromosome variants that lead to such chromosomal abnormalities like Trisomy 18. So think about it this way...if scientists decide to create a vaccine with two or three strains of an illness, and someone mucks up even a little bit, in a way no one could know...we could realistically have a brand-new mutated hybrid strain, or even several. This happens in nature all the time, and why it is almost impossible to completely eradicate any communicable disease.

Vaccine Escape Mutants [1]

Even the WHO (World Health Organization) is extremely concerned about Vaccine Escape Mutants (VEMs) and ADAP-VEMs (antiviral drug-associated potential vaccine escape mutants). VEMs are strains of the virus that have mutated because of overuse of a vaccine, in this case the Hepatitis B vaccine. The WHO page puts it a little more mildly by stating it is "riskier" for highly populated areas (AKA we are overusing this vaccine!!) Also, as a disease that thrives in highly populated areas, does this mean the vaccine is pretty much ineffective since the rate of VEMs is higher in highly populated areas? The WHO has stated that in order for a strain to be truly dangerous it must meet four qualifications; 1. it must be stable, 2. it must be so radically different that it is resistant to the vaccine, 3. it has to be transmissible, 4. it must cause acute/chronic infection. The WHO states: 

"Of these four characteristics, to date we have evidence that three have been fulfilled, although we do not know if ADAP-VEMs have the same propensity to cause disease as do strains of HBV that are already circulating. However, given the high rate of HBV drug resistance and the discovery of ADAP-VEMs in individuals who have received lamivudine therapy, we suggest at least two features of HBV treatment programmes may increase the likelihood that an ADAP-VEM of public health importance will emerge."

"It has been recognized that the administration of hepatitis B vaccine can increase the mutation rate of the virus. In high-prevalence countries such as China, Thailand as well as Province of Taiwan. China, monitoring for more than a decade has shown that hepatitis B immunization programmes have increased the incidence of HBV variants with mutations in the surface antigen protein9,10 even as they reduce the overall burden of chronic hepatitis B infection.11 ... Infection of immunized individuals with a vaccine escape mutant (VEM)20 is therefore possible. Some of these variants are associated with high levels of viraemia and have persisted in the host for more than 10 years, suggesting they are stable and transmissible variants. In addition, the antibody responses against the surface antigen protein elicited by the recombinant yeast-derived vaccine now in use are weaker and more specific than those achieved with the previous plasma-derived surface antigen vaccine.22–24 In Province of Taiwan, China, up to 28% of children with chronic hepatitis B infection also harbour hepatitis B surface antigen mutants. So VEMs capable of causing infection in fully immunized individuals are not uncommon in countries with high rates of endemic HBV infection and universal hepatitis B infant immunization programmes.12,20 However, to date the emergence of VEMs has not had a known negative impact on any country’s immunization programme.25"

The WHO contradicts themselves over and over. "However, to date the emergence of VEMs has not had a known negative impact on any country's immunization programme."? If this were true, why would it affect countries with a high infant vaccination program? The US vaccinates over 95% of its newborn babies with Hep. B before leaving the hospital, or at the first well-check appointment. So this practice IS negatively affecting things if VEMs are capable of infecting fully vaccinated individuals in our country. It means that it doesn't work. If it were true, how would they be able to measure how likely it is in certain areas, how many individuals are affected by VEMs? They wouldn't. Also, since they can't monitor VEMs well enough to know whether a VEM has caused acute/chronic infection (since many don't even know they have Hepatitis B until they are hospitalized), they don't know how prevalent VEMs are, since most will have minor illness and full recovery from Hepatitis B.

There are some other troubling issues surrounding treatment of Hepatitis B and how some of the antiviral agents used can cause a strain to mutate or become stronger and resistant to antivirals and vaccines.

"Lamivudine, although it is relatively inexpensive, has been shown to rapidly result in the selection of primary antiviral drug-resistant polymerase variants. These variants in turn also select for compensatory mutations, some of which may have altered surface antigens.33,34,39 ... All of these newer medications, however, are more expensive and their long-term efficacy is still being established. Consequently, for the foreseeable future many countries, especially in the Asia-Pacific region, will probably continue to treat chronic hepatitis B infection with lamivudine even though it is no longer considered the first-line treatment, and despite the fact that drug resistance may rapidly emerge.41"

Wait wait wait a minute. So these drugs have been contributing to this problem and yet they are still allowed to be used because they are CHEAP? The newer medications have no long-term efficacy studies done? That must also mean we don't know long-term adverse events and effects of these drugs as well. We have bigger issues at hand than a world vaccination program.

Some more troubling quotes:

"The second potentially problematic feature of current treatment programmes is the way patients are selected. ... Antiviral drugs are the only long-term treatment option for chronic hepatitis B infection,40 and many investigators have argued that all patients who are viraemic should be treated. ... In addition to being costly, this approach may generate antiviral drug resistance since current agents never lead to eradication of the virus, but only to control of replication. This effect, in turn, can complicate second-line therapies and may favour the appearance of ADAP-VEMs. ... However, there is no consensus globally regarding which patients to treat, and WHO has not yet produced international recommendations to guide therapy (Daniel Lavanchy, personal communication, 2008). Inappropriate inclusion criteria, improper application of these criteria or lack of compliance with treatment could greatly influence the emergence of both drug resistance and ADAP-VEMs."

So we don't know how to treat this effectively? Just "control" its replication inside the already-infected person's body? Sweet. Let me just inject myself with the vaccine putting this virus into my body when the WHO has already stated that it's not going to effectively lower my chances! What is with all of the "costly" stuff? Why is money an issue when lives are at stake and there is plenty of financial surplus? I'd love to hear this. You can only treat some people, because it's "for the greater good" and "survival of the fittest"? That's the only argument I ever hear, for the record. If the drugs and the vaccines in use are contributing to ADAP-VEMs and VEMs, shouldn't we be spending money on trying to find or create an antiviral agent that can treat this (not "control" it) or some way to help prevent it more reliably, instead of injecting people with a vaccine which will have long-term health effects and still not prevent transmission in a huge amount of people (therefore cannot be counted as a preventative measure)?

"The public health risk of treatment programmes in different populations may also depend upon features of the circulating viral genotype. There is evidence that the genotype of the virus influences the speed and frequency of development of resistance to treatment, which may in turn influence the likelihood that ADAP-VEMs will emerge."

Taken from WHO website. [1]

 So really, we have no control over this at all?

"Among children born to mothers who are HBeAg-positive, 90% will become infected whereas only 10% of children born to HBeAg-negative mothers will become infected."

So we are injecting all newborns with this why? Shouldn't we just be recommending the vaccine for infants most at risk? Oh yeah, let's revisit that CDC quote.

"Infants born to HBV-infected mothers require Hepatitis B vaccine and Hepatitis B immune globulin (HBIG) withing 12 hours of birth to protect them from infection. However, because errors or delays in documenting, testing, and reporting maternal HBsAg status can and do occur, administering the first dose of Hepatitis B vaccine soon after birth to all infants acts as a safety net, reducing the risk for perinatal infection when infection maternal HBsAg status is either unknown or incorrectly documented at delivery. Also, initiating the Hepatitis B vaccine series at birth has been shown to increase a child's likelihood of completing the vaccine series on schedule." [2]

Hmmm...so in case of a health-care providers muck-up? Because you don't trust mothers and even if their test is negative, they must be positive? Is there really that many errors and false negatives that EVERY American newborn needs this vaccine? If the answer is yes, we  have bigger problems. If the answer is no, why the hell are we still advocating and allowing this? Oh, to further the vaccine schedule. That makes complete sense, since the only reason for the child to complete every vaccine on the schedule is for profit. Every child does not NEED over 50 vaccines by adolescence.

"For example, the efficiency of transmission from an HBeAg-positive mother to her child during the perinatal period creates a very high risk for chronic hepatitis B infection. This risk makes it important to monitor for ADAP-VEMs among treated women of childbearing age, especially if lamivudine is used as monotherapy, since neither hepatitis B immunoglobulin nor active immunization would prevent infection with an ADAP-VEM transmitted from mother to child. In addition, the child may then spread the ADAP-VEM to other children, immunized or not. ... On the other hand, it has been estimated that the proportion of all HBV infections acquired among children more than 5 years of age ranges from 10% where prevalence of hepatitis B infection is high to as much as 90% where prevalence is low.47 These numbers suggest that monitoring for ADAP-VEMs may be needed in other populations in addition to HBV-infected HBeAg-positive women of childbearing age." Note: my emphasis.

So the vaccine and HBIG really don't do anything? If you don't know the rate of what is a common strain and what is a(n) (ADAP-) VEM, how do you know that the vaccine is going to work? What percentage of strains are VEMs? They certainly aren't figured into efficacy rates, no, because that would lower it. Humph. How interesting. So I should vaccinate myself and my child for what reason?

Hepatitis B Immune Globulin (HBIG)

"Anyone who is exposed to hep B-infected blood can be given an HBIG injection, which is made of hepatitis B antibodies filtered out through donated blood units from volunteers who have high antibody levels. This blood product is sterilized and filtered through various techniques. The injection contains the antibodies in a saline solution with polysorbate 80." [3]

Well, if this were so convenient, why do we vaccinate for it? Why isn't this ever mentioned to new mothers who are negative for Hep. B? Instead of putting their babies at risk with toxic ingredients as a (faulty) preventative measure, why not mention a reactive measure she can take if the child is ever exposed (highly unlikely)? We know that it is an acceptable method of prevention for those who are at risk (45-75%), but not everyone is at risk. [15] It is also important to note that this is a blood product - some have religious objections and some are not willing to risk trans-virus contamination (such as Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease) and/or being infected with Hep. B via the HBIG.

Here's where it gets real interesting. The first-line recommended practice for infants most at risk is to have the newborn receive both the Hep. B vaccine and the HBIG within 12-24 hours after birth. Although it is effective, it has not been tested for pediatric usage, and its possible overdose limits haven't been tested at all. So, we really have no idea what side-effects it can have, especially on infants who aren't at risk anyways. [16]

Okay, phew, now that that's out of the way. So what is polysorbate 80 and why is it in his immune globulin? It is supposedly an adjuvant, a surfactant, something that is supposed to help stabilize a compound. However, it is also considered the most likely candidate for a birth control/sterilization vaccination by several agencies worldwide and is already being used to sterilize horses and cattle. It is known to cause impaired and/or premature development of sexual organs and abnormalities. It is a 'hidden anaphylactoid' and has been linked to anaphylaxis, even resulting in death, in many cases. [17] I am doing a post on Polysorbate 80 very soon. The risks of the HBIG should also be weighed against the benefits closely.

How likely is it my child could catch that from somewhere, anyway?

Very unlikely. See Part One for how it is transmitted.

"Only about thirty infant, thirty children aged one to four, and seventy children five through fourteen are diagnosed every year... Virtually all of these cases are due to transmission from an undiagnosed hep B-positive mother during delivery." [3]

Also, if almost all of those cases are from mothers undiagnosed during delivery, isn't that the care provider's fault? Shouldn't we be strengthening up protocol instead of injecting every infant whimsically because you don't want to teach care providers any better and/or reprimand them?

Maintaining a healthy diet whilst pregnant can help reduce perinatal infection risk (as can avoiding cervical checks and internal interventions during labor and delivery). [13]

An infant's immune system is immature until around six years of age, and the blood-brain barrier isn't mature until adolescence. This leaves infants and young children vulnerable to immunotoxicity and autoimmune reactions.

Which would make vaccinating an infant for these diseases pretty useless for long term-protection. An infant is mostly incapable of developing TH1/TH2 cells (needed for immunity) until after six to nine months of age, and from then on slowly matures. So to inject a newborn to six/nine month old with up to 24 vaccines is pointless, since the premise of vaccination is to develop antibodies that will last long enough to protect the infant! Even afterwards, the infant still cannot produce enough immune reaction to make enough antibodies to be considered "immune."

"The infant immune system matures during the first year, and is more mature at age two, but the immune system does not reach full maturity until the child is around six years old." [7]

The "critical window of exposure" for chemicals to damage the fragile immune system is birth to one year. This includes benzopyrene which is a main component of cigarette smoke, and dioxin, a main ingredient in disposable diapers. Being vaccinated during pregnancy or vaccinating your infant exposes them to harmful chemicals as well, which can suppress the immune system rather than help it. I'm just giving an example here.

"Women can mount a stronger T-cell immune response and produce higher levels of antibodies, higher titres  These are estrogen-driven traits. However, there's a price to be paid for this difference in females. Women are considerably more prone to develop autoimmune disease. ...But at pharmacological levels this is immunotoxic. And at very low levels of exposure the same is true of dioxin. These latter two compounds produce a very prolonged postnatal immunosuppression. A recent concern, and a new concern of the NIH (which sent out a related RFA not long ago) is that exposure to these compounds may induce or exacerbate autoimmune disease in the human population." [14]

According to Mary Barbera, RN, MSN...

"The blood-brain barrier isn't intact until at least six weeks of life. This is why a newborn with a fever must be subjected to a spinal tap to rule out meningitis. Any virus or bacteria that a newborn is exposed to can go directly to the immune system.
This is why the Hepatitis B vaccine at birth is so dangerous. Between 1991 and 1999, when the shot contained thimerisol, giving it at birth would have resulted in mercury crossing into the brain since the blood-brain barrier was not yet intact.  As a nurse, I'm concerned that this information about the normal timing of a blood-brain barrier forming is not more readily known.
I think this normal delay in the forming of a blood-brain barrier is an important piece of the puzzle and one of the reasons for the surge of autism in the 90's."

The blood-brain barrier is semi-permeable, it however can be forced to "open" and "close." One way scientists do this is via the agent Polysorbate 80, (and other Polysorbates). Basically, certain things attach to polysorbate 80 which forces the BBB "open" to permissible and pass what is attached to P80 through. That means all of the toxins, foreign DNA, and viruses. It cannot get back through without being forced "open" again and even then there is little on the subject of actually ridding the body of it once it has crossed the BBB. It is considered incredibly improbable to impossible. This includes MSG and other chemicals in food too - so commercial infant formula, rice cereal, and other drugs commonly given to newborns unnecessarily. For example, Erythromycin is smeared onto newborn's eyes to "protect" from infections and "Vitamin" K is injected at the same time that the Hep. B vaccine is administered, making the newborn also at risk for passing the Erythromycin and synthetic "Vitamin" K through to the brain.

"Polysorbate 80 is a very effective surfactant used to trick and open the blood-brain barrier, and allow nano-drugs to be dragged through to the brain." -- Hilary Butler

It is not very well know exactly how these agents cause autoimmunity, but evidence is mounting that it does in fact cause autoimmunity. Some theories are that it attacks the brain, and when our antibodies are sent to protect the brain, it attacks the brain as well, unable to determine which is foreign and which is self due to the nature of P80 and the trace of foreign invaders on the brain. Another is that the foreign agents attach to the brain specifically, and antibodies are sent to "kill" them, however since it's now technically part of the brain that is an ongoing battle (forever). [18]

In addition, there are other ways to help prevent this illness (well, illness in general). Yippee! Ways to be healthy!

Avoid hand sanitizers and anti-microbial/anti-bacterial products. But, why, my dears? Yes indeed they are perpetuated to make thinks much "cleaner" and get rid of "germs." However, they are also helping superbugs form because they only kill 99.9% of "germs." So that 0.1% that does seem so insignificant, will now become antibiotic resistant meaning there will be NO WAY to treat it. Now THAT'S a deadly disease after several hundred lifecycles. Not just for that reason though; we don't know much about the microbiome (all of the microbes on each of our bodies is its own microbiome) that mostly helps protect us. Brand new research (just this month!) has come out on the microbiome basically explaining how little we know, but what we do know is that it plays a MAJOR role in preventing disease.

"But when the normal composition of the microbiome is thrown off balance, researchers say, the human host can get into serious trouble—especially because the 5 million to 8 million different microbial genes in our bodies vastly outnumber the 20,000 or so human genes. Indeed, recent research has implicated microbiome imbalances in disorders as diverse as cancer, obesity, inflammatory bowel disease, psoriasis, asthma, and possibly even autism (Science, 26 November 2010, p. 1168; 1 April 2011, p. 32)." [5]

So altering your microbiome can be harmful; which is what hand sanitzers, anti-microbial and antibacterial products do.

In infants, method of delivery/birth (vaginal vs. cesarean), breastfeeding vs. formula-feeding, and weaning age determine variance outcomes of the microbiome. So it is important to have a vaginal birth (if possible; including VBACs), and to breastfeed as long as inherently possible. It's not just that breastfeeding increases the health of microbiome, but that it actually gives passive immunity to the infant for many diseases and is also more nutritionally sound (nutrition is an important part of health).

"The microbiota of the infant is seeded at birth and is initially undifferentiated across the various body habitats. A variety of factors—including method of delivery (vaginal versus Cesarean section), breast feeding, and weaning—influence the infant microbiota (Fig. 1). For example, the microbiota of babies delivered vaginally are dominated by Lactobacillus, Prevotella, and Atopobium, whereas babies delivered by Cesarean section have a microbiota that more closely resembles that of the maternal skin community, with staphylococci being a dominant early member (4)." [6]

"Human milk has been found to contain 90 different oligosaccharides forming over 900 different chemical structures, each of which can block infection by preventing a particular strain of bacteria from sticking to the gut wall. ... Unlike antibodies, they are able to protect a baby from bacteria or viruses that a mother has never been exposed to. What is more, oligosaccharides are just one in a class of human milk components -- there are others called glycoproteins and glycolipids -- that work by blocking the attachment of microbes to the cells of the gut, so preventing infection." "For example, it was found that the thymus -- a central organ of the immune system -- is twice as big in breastfed infants compared with formula-fed infants at four months. The size difference was also seen at ten months." "Since breastfeeding is the biological norm, and since organs of the immune system like the thymus can only develop to their full potential through breastfeeding, an inevitable conclusion must be that people who were never breastfed (or those who were weaned too early) will have deficient immune systems -- not just in infancy but for the rest of their lives." [7]

"Childhood malnutrition is a global health problem that cannot be attributed to food insecurity alone. The gut microbiota may contribute to this devastating health disorder. ... This effort will require elucidation of the interrelationships between breast milk composition and the development of the microbiota and immune system in the context of the maternal-infant dyad." [8]

In children and adults, nutrition is so incredibly important. You don't want things to enter your body that can disrupt your symbiotic microbiome. Yet, we consume these things every day...genetically modified food, pesticide-laden fruits, veggies, and other products, meat treated in ammonia coming from sick and unhealthy cows, cow's milk laden with antibiotics, growth hormones, disease, and pus, overly processed food containing multitudes of chemicals (many banned in most other countries), and other things. Maintaining a truly healthy diet diverse in organic and natural foods will greatly boost the immune system and help prevent disease. [9] Also, supplementing your diet with probiotic-rich foods such as yogurt or over-the-counter probiotics has been said to improve gut functionality (micriobiome) and help the immune system.

Vitamin A deficiency and excessive intake are shown to hinder immune system functions, and it is well-established that it is an essential vitamin to overcoming illness and developing immunity. Long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) are also essential nutrition that should be consumed in healthy amounts as they function to help innate and acquired immunity. These include n-3 PUFA (α-linolenic) and n-6 PUFA (linoleic acid). You may have seen "DHA" and/or "ARA" or "EPA" marketed in supplements, baby formula, etc. and they are synthesized from a type of fermented algae and soil fungus, of which neither are native to the human diet and processed with a neurotoxic petrochemical called hexane (hexane is a byproduct of gasoline refinement and is highly processed. Even organic formulas have been guilty of adding this "substitute" into their formulas, which has repeatedly been shown in meta-analyses to have no effect on infant brain and eye development. Almost four years ago, it was finally announced that a plan to remove this additive from infant formulas and foods was going to be developed (still no updates on that) and both the National Organic Program and FDA have admitted that this is something that violates the USDA organic standards and is not allowed to be in an organically-labelled product as it is considered genetically modified. In addition, recent studies mothers in the Amazon have a healthier n-3:n-6 ratio than mothers in the United States due to diet (which consists of no processed foods, freshwater fish, locally grown staples, and game.) As it is critical in brain development and other aspects of health, it is essential to try and maintain healthy levels from natural sources. Vitamins B6, B12, C, D, and E, as well as Iron, Zinc, and a host of other nutrients, are entirely crucial to the immune system. [10][11]

"Vitamin A is essential for cells of the immune system. The considerable immune benefits (to cells of the innate and acquired immune system), which would contribute to reduce the risk of various pathogen-mediated diseases, warrants a recommendation to supplement individuals with minimal or poor vitamin A status." [10]

"Feeding EPA and DHA has been shown to modulate specific functions of innate and acquired immunity." [10]

"Clearly the essentiality of vitamin C to cells of the immune system has been established. Although not all clinical data agree with an effect of vitamin C on viral infections, there is convincing evidence from feeding studies in humans and animals and experiments done on primary cultures that vitamin C has a positive effect on host defense." [10] Note: Vitamin C can be taken in very high doses without any negative effects.

"Vitamin E and Se are essential to immune function and are supplemented routinely in the diets of domestic animals for their immune benefits [94]. These nutrients have long been known to have anticarcinogenic effects by means of their antioxidant properties." [10] Note: Vitamin E And Selenium (Se) word synergystically (work together but separately), so it is a good idea that if you supplement with Vitamin E to find a supplement with Selenium, too.

Keeping a healthy weight and body-mass index (BMI) also helps immune response. In obese health care workers, their antibody response to Hep. B vaccination was significantly lower than those with lower BMIs. Why obese people have lowered immune response is not well studied, but studies are clear that there is a significant number more hospitalizations for viral and bacterial infections in obese individuals. [12]

Resources

[1] Clements, John, et al. (2009, October 23). Global control of hepatitis B virus: does treatment-induced antigenic change affect immunization? World Health Organization Int. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2010;88:66-73. doi: 10.2471/BLT.08.065722. http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/88/1/08-065722/en/index.html

[2] CDC. (2012, January 1). Hepatitis B Information for Health Professionals. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  http://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/HBV/HBVfaq.htm#overview

[3] Sears, MD, FAAP, R. W. (2007). The Vaccine Book. New York, New York: Little, Brown & Company.

[4] Cave, MD, FAAFP, Stephanie. (2001, September). What Your Doctor May NOT Tell You About Your Children's Vaccinations. New York, New York: Warner Books, Inc.

[5] Balter, Michael. (2012, June 6). Taking Stock of the Microbiome and Disease. Science. doi: 10.1126/science.336.6086.1246. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6086/1246.full

[6] Nicholson, J. K., et al. (2012, June 6). Host-Gut Microbiota Metabolic Reactions. Science. doi: 10.1126/science.1223813. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6086/1262.full

[7] Ochert, Ayala. (2009). The Science of Mother's Milk. New Beginnings; Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 28-29. http://www.llli.org/nb/nbiss3-09p28.html

[8] Gordon, J. I., et al. (2012, June 6). Malnutrion; The Human Gut Microbiota and Undernutrition. Sci. Transl. Med. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3004347 http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/4/137/137ps12.abstract

[9] Hooper, L. V. (2012, June 6). Interactions Between the Microbiota and the Immune System. Science. doi: 10.1126/science.1223490 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6086/1268.full

[10] Field, C. J., et al. (2002, January). Nutrients and their role in host resistance to infection. Journal of Luekocyte Biology Vol. 71, No. 1, pp. 16-32. http://www.jleukbio.org/content/71/1/16.full

[11] Keusch, G. T. (2003, January 1). The History of Nutrition: Malnutrition, Infection, and Immunity. Journal of Nutrition, Vol. 133, No. 1, 336S-340S. http://jn.nutrition.org/content/133/1/336S.full

[12] Karlsson, E. A., et al. (2010, December). The burden of obesity on infectious disease. Experimental Biology and Medicine, Vol. 235, No. 12,  pp. 1412-1424. doi: 10.1258/ebm.2010.010227 http://ebm.rsmjournals.com/content/235/12/1412.full

[13] Goldenberg, R. L. (2003, May 1). The Plausibility of Micronutrient Deficiency in Relationship to Perinatal Infection. Journal of Nutrition, Vol. 133, No. 5, 1645SS-1648SS. http://jn.nutrition.org/content/133/5/1645S.full

[14] Development and Maturation of the Immune System: Vulnerability to Toxins. http://oehha.ca.gov/public_info/public/kids/pdf/Holladayed.pdf

[15] Palmer Beasley, R., et al. (1981, August). Hepatitis B Immune Globulin (HBIG) Efficacy in the Interruption of Perinatal Transmission of Hepatitis B Carrier State. The Lancet, Vol. 318, Issue 8243, pp 388-393. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(81)90832-1/abstract

[16] Talecris HyperHepB S/D Manufacturer's Insert. http://www.talecris-pi.info/inserts/hyperhepb.pdf

[17] Karpasea-Jones, Joanna. Polysorbate 80 Causes Infertility. http://suite101.com/article/polysorbate-80-causes-infertility-a60320

[18] Singh, Vijendra K. Evidence suggests a pathogenic role of brain autoimmunity in central nervous system diseases. http://www.aarda.org/infocus_article.php?ID=55

The Awe of Breastfeeding, Lactivism by Chance

I know that it has been months since my last post. I am working hard on it, it is really long and comprehensive...it's really informative. So please be patient! :)

I just wanted to share an experience I had on the bus today. I was really upset at first about it - I had planned a really last minute get-together with my friend and she cancelled when I was in the middle of my trip (taking public transport AKA "the T" as it is called here). I was really frustrated but after sleeping on it; in hindsight my trip had a purpose. It seems kind of extravagant for the purpose it entailed - but I really think that a conversation I had with the woman on the bus really need to take place for her sake; and it was just before my friend cancelled on me. I am glad I was there to inform her. I really wanted to ask her name and I wish I did; but I didn't get the chance. We'll call her Ana. So here is kind of how it went:

Ana: "Oh, please sit here, you shouldn't have to stand!"

I sat next to her, pulling my daughter's carriage close. "Thanks!"

Ana: Your daughter is soooo cute! How old?

Me: Almost a year! She is so big, I can't believe it!

Ana: Yes, it goes fast! I have one, he is almost five! You look so youuung!

Me: Really?? That's great. So you know how it is. I am a bit young!

Ana: I had mine when I was in high school, his father and I separated last year. I am glad that I had help and was able to go to college after though. Is her father still in her life?

Me: That's okay, sometimes it doesn't work out. Yes, we're still together! Are you going to "the local" [I am excluding the actual name] college?

Ana: Yes! I got a degree from somewhere else first, and graduated from it early. I'm trying to go on more.

Me: That's fantastic! I bet you love it! -- My daughter interrupts at this time and starts babbling to Ana, who talks a little back.

Ana: She is so big and healthy! My son was always so small and always slept! Does she wake for bottles in the night?

Me: No, never. She's a great sleeper!

Ana: That's great, my son was always a good sleeper too, I was lucky! Formula is just so expensive, that I would have had to buy a lot more if he woke at night!

Me: We actually breastfeed so we don't have to buy any, which is great because the money for it is awfully pricey.

Ana: Really? You are still going?? I could only breastfeed my son for one month. It hurt me so bad for him to suck! And I was always dripping dripping, I couldn't even pump. - Ana looked really bummed, so I thought I'd see how open she was to a few pointers.

Me: Oh, I'm sorry! Did you see any lactation consultants about figuring out the problem?

Ana: No, what is that? -- I was a bit bewildered she wasn't offered one at the hospital.

Me: They are trained in breastfeeding and can help figure out problems like latch for sucking, and tongue and lip ties.

Ana: Really? So breastfeeding doesn't have to hurt? What is a lip tie?

Me: No, I never had any pain! Lip ties are when the little piece of skin doesn't let him use his lip right for latching. Usually the pediatrician or dentist will just snip it. -- I showed her my daughter's lip tie, which is not clipped.

Ana: Oh, my son has that! He clicked a lot too. Does that mean that any other babies I have will have a tie?

Me: No, but it's very possible. If you think that this is a problem with your next baby, you can have it clipped and it will help.

Ana seemed so hopeful and excited that maybe next time she could breastfeed! She offered up some more.

Ana: I have a new boyfriend and we have been talking about more kids. But, what do I do when I have to work? I can't breastfeed there.

I laughed a little. Me: Of course not, but your work has to give you time to pump, and you can store that milk for the next day for daycare.

Ana: And what about dripping all the time? Don't you still drip?

Me: No, I dripped a lot in the beginning. After 2 months I only dripped sometimes, and after six months I never dripped anymore.

Ana: Really? That is great! It is so healthy instead of formula, I wanted to do it more with my son. They say it helps with infection and them not to be sick. Does she bite? I am afraid the teeth will hurt.

Me: A little, when they get used to having new teeth. It hurts, but you just teach them No! and put them off and wait five minutes, and try again. After a few days she never bit me again on purpose. Yes, my daughter has never been sick. It is really good for the immune system.

Ana: Wow, I am so happy that maybe I can breastfeed! Thank you. And you are so young and knowledgeable. Wow. -- Ana proceeded to talk to my daughter who was getting a little fussy from not having attention. haha!

We sat in silence for a minute or two and then my stop came. I apologized for having to get off, and that she should have a nice day. I told her if she ever needs help, to ask for it! There is a lot she can do give herself the best chance! I am sure we chatted a little more about other things, but this is mostly what I remember.







In hindsight this was very humbling for me. It is a stark reminder of how uninformed women are, and how little help they really are offered. How are women supposed to achieve their goals if no one gives them the pointers they need to find the path that leads them there? I am so thankful that I was able to help "Ana" and I am thankful that she will get a chance to do something she really seemed to care about. I love helping women and I'm glad to be blessed with knowledge to do so. It does sadden me how little help "Ana" was offered, but I am glad to make a difference. Perhaps she will pass this knowledge to her friends, and they will pass it to theirs. And perhaps their children will then be encouraged to make that decision for their children. You never realize how important and far-reaching a five minute conversation can be until after it happens. I am very privileged and lucky to have had this information to give her.

Thank you "Ana" and I hope you got the information you were seeking, even if it was five years late.