The POX BOX

Many of today's parents are horrified when they hear stories of mothers taking their children to "pox parties" which are designed to expose their children to chicken pox and gain immunity naturally. Many people are up in arms slinging around words like "child abuse" and "irresponsible." As a child in the 70s, I remember most mothers doing just that when one of the kids got sick with the chicken pox. No one threatened to take their children away. it was just accepted as a way to get the disease over with.

The vaccines for these childhood diseases seemed like such a good idea, especially in the late 80s when moms started to get back in the workforce. It was no longer feasible to keep a kid home with a parent if it meant missing a week of work. Now that no one was home we needed a better way to "deal with the problem" and modern medicine delivered.

Smoke and Mirrors

But what they delivered was not exactly what we bargained for. As the list of convenience vaccines increased, the schedule became overwhelming. Was it really OK to give a child 5 shots at two months of age? To answer this question, big pharma started combining the vaccines. They also increased the amount of chemicals in them so that the body could race to get rid of the chemicals, thus finding the tiny amount of expensive pathogen. This made them cheaper to manufacture, and people got less sticks. Problem solved, Right?

Well, not so much. Chicken pox and MMR both, depending on the manufacturer, have human components, which are injected into your child's body with the pathogen. They also contain preservatives and adjuvants, like aluminum, which is toxic to the brain. It was discovered by the AAP to cause developmental delay in premature infants who were given 500 microrgrams over a 10 day period. The Pediarix brand vaccine contains 800 micrograms in one dose.

An adjuvant is something that stimulates the immune system to say, "hey, get this crap the heck out of here before it gets to the brain!" These adjuvants hyper-stimulate the immune system so that it finds the pathogen. The human components are thought to be inert particles used as a growing medium for the pathogens. Those shouldn't be an issue, right?

Putting It All Together

Wrong again. When I was writing for readytoquit.com, I came across some information about the nicotine vaccine. This vaccine was comprised of a pathogen and nicotine,The vaccine was extremely successful in the first three stages of trials. When injected, the test subjects created antibodies for the nicotine molecule,  When the antibody attached to the nicotine molecule it was too large to pass the blood brain barrier. Consequently, when they smoked they had no "ahhh" feeling anymore and and as a result many stopped smoking.

Reading this literature shocked me. Aside from my questions about what would happen if these people who had been injected with the vaccine would become allergic to the foods that contain nicotine, such as eggplant, peppers and tomatoes, I had other concerns. I was bringing it to my situation where my kiddos were getting injected with egg components and human tissues. To me, it was not a far stretch to assume that my child's body would create antibodies for these egg and human components as well as the pathogens.

We are seeing a dramatic rise in Autism, and if you've read anything about PANDAS you know that antibodies can attack brain tissue, so the question if these things cause autisim is still very much up in the air, at least in my opinion. We are also seeing a dramatic rise in other autoimmune diseases such as alopecia areata, lupus, and MS.

What Time Is It?

The complications of the diseases of Measles, Mumps, Rubella, and Chicken Pox are indeed rare. Almost everyone in the 50s and 60s got these diseases and nearly all lived through them. According to the CDC, those most likely to experience those complications are those with compromised immune systems. So why aren't we just vaccinating these groups instead of the whole population?

To me we are doing way more harm than good trying to vaccinate the entire population in effort to eliminate the disease. If we've learned anything from the flu virus it is that viruses mutate. To chase them away by trying to vaccinate for everything is like trying to keep a colander from leaking. If convenience is the main reason we get these shots for our kids, are we counting how many total hours spent on behavioral therapy?


So to get rid of these troublesome, work interrupting, childhood illnesses, we went a step beyond "dangerous" illnesses, like diphtheria, and started vaxing for everything, including diarrhea. It just doesn't make sense to vax for a fairly mild childhood illness when doing so could cause lifelong debilitation. Besides the possible neurological effects, the varicella vaccine is a risk factor for shingles later in life, which is why moms are deciding against the vaccine, and choosing to get their child's immunity naturally.

It's Party Time!

I'm not sure I'll ever have my children attend a pox party, but knowing what I know now about how immunizations work, I am not going to inject my children with human components. To me that is just setting them up for an auto-immune disease later. If my unvaxed child gets to the age where it becomes evident that she hasn't gained immunity, I'll get her titered for varicella and decide what to do then.

Why I (STILL!?!?) Breastfeed My Two-Year-Old

Many people express shock and sometimes even horror when they learn that I still breastfeed my 2 1/2 year old. However there are several important reasons why, despite their discomfort, I will continue until she is ready to wean. Here are just a few:

She's not biologically ready to be weaned.

At the age of two, a child has usually just gotten their 2 year molars and is just starting to be able to chew foods correctly. It can take a year or more for them to master chewing their food well enough to digest it fully. When we use cows milk we are merely using a substitute nutritional source for breast milk.

Dairy products are far from an ideal substitute, especially since large scale dairy farming has limited our access to fresh unpasteurized milk that is full of infection fighting enzymes and antibodies. Johne's disease, which is rampant in most cattle herds, has been correlated with Crohne's disease in humans. "BOTH Johne’s in cattle and Crohn’s in humans are increasing worldwide in all industrialized countries." (http://www.johnes.org/handouts/files/Feedstuffs_9-19-05.pdf) Medical testing for MAP organisms, organisms that are disease causing in cattle that are correlated with Johne's disease, was found in 50% of those with Crohn's disease in one Florida study. "One study, conducted by the Marshfield Clinic in Marshfield, Wis., found viable MAP organisms in samples of pasteurized retail milk in California, Minnesota and Wisconsin." If you add to this the hormones given to the herds to increase milk production, knowing that these same hormones DO end up in the milk, there is plenty of reason to avoid weaning a 12 month old onto cows milk.

The WHO suggests that 7 is a better upper limit than the current 1 year that many American pediatricians push. There are many factors in when this happens, including the temperament of the child, the age in which the adult teeth start to emerge, and whether or not mom's milk supply is able to be sustained. Certainly none of this should be due to societal pressures to quit, but sadly there is a tremendous burden that is placed on moms to stop before their child is ready, especially in the American culture.

The World Health Organization says to.

The World Health Organization has taken a global liking to the breastfeeding movement, not just because they represent less developed cultures, but because they know it is good for babies. The WHO recommends that babies be fed nothing but breast milk til 6 months of age and then continued breastfeeding up to and including 2 years of age, "or beyond." They also assert that breastfeeding is, "the normal way of providing young infants with the nutrients they need for healthy growth and development." These recommendations are echoed by the AAP and other health organizations as well. 

Both of us enjoy it.

The bonding that happens during the breastfeeding relationship is irreplaceable. The skin to skin contact, the mutual trust, and the mutual respect that are developed during the course of extended breastfeeding encourage social development that must happen in other ways when the breastfeeding relationship is severed pre-maturely.

It also is not what some outsiders, often male, make of the relationship. While breast stimulation during sexual arousal is both pleasurable and erotic, breastfeeding is pleasurable (sometimes) but is not erotic for most people. Think of the time when your toddler said, "I love you" for the first time. That "awww" feeling is the same feeling we moms get when we are meeting the needs of our children in this special way.

It teaches personal boundaries.

Speaking of social development, being this close to your toddler several times a day can teach boundaries of appropriate behavior much more easily and with less casualties. For instance I can teach my toddler not to pinch or bite, and I don't have to apologize to any other moms for my daughter assaulting their child. She is learning physical boundaries with me instead of her playmates fingers. She also learns about others needs. When she's nursing and the phone rings, or one of the other children need something, or I have to go to the bathroom, she learns that sometimes other people have needs too.

It is what my breasts were designed to do.

Anytime you look into breast cancer statistics, you'll find that women who breastfed for a longer period of time are less likely to get breast cancer. I believe this is because once the hormones of pregnancy have stimulated the breast tissue to produce milk, that milk needs to go somewhere. Otherwise the body must reabsorb the fluid and hormone levels drop even more severely postpartum. Not breastfeeding can literally cause postpartum depression.

Also, breastfeeding for extended periods of time are linked with a decreased risk of many types of cancer. Many cancers are linked with estrogen, one female hormone, and estrogen is literally neutralized by the act of breastfeeding. A pool of 47 studies found that breastfeeding for 1 year during a woman's lifetime has a small reduction in breast cancer risk, while breastfeeding for 2 or more years can have up to a 25 percent lower risk. The risk of other cancers, such as ovarian and uterine cancers, are also lowered as well. Extended breastfeeding is linked to lower rates of childhood cancer as well. So both bubs and boobs benefit.

It helps protect her against infection.

The NIH says it like this:

"Breastfeeding is superior to infant formula feeding because in addition to breastmilk's nutritional advantages, it protects against infections through specific and non-specific immune factors and has long-term consequences for metabolism and disease later in life" 

These immune factors are known to increase as the child grows into young toddler hood. This makes sense because that is when the little one is starting to play with other children and explore more of their world. 

As a personal anecdote, when my baby was 13 months old a very nasty strain of the flu went through our house. Everyone of the other family members had high 102 to 104 degree fevers for anywhere from 2 to 3 days. My little one did not get so much as a sniffle. You can say that is just a coincidence until you learn that there are 5 other people in the house, and all were sick at nearly the same time, that is except for my happy nursling. Had I quit when she was 12 months like some people encouraged me to do, she would not have had the rush of antibodies from my milk to keep her from getting sick.

It helps with cognitive development.

The brain building nutrients don't magically stop at the 12 month mark, and brain development doesn't stop then either. So why then are we encouraged to believe the brain building benefits stop then? Massive changes occur in the the brain during the first two years of life. Even though those changes are a bit slower in the second year, doesn't mean they slow to a point where the natural, bio-available DHA and ARA have no effect. Science has yet to discover every benefit breast milk has on cognitive development. Why stop?

.

It lets her know her needs are important.

The main reason I "still" breastfeed my 2 1/2 year old is it lets her know her needs are important to me. While some may balk at her so called "dependence," the security that comes from knowing that her comfort needs are met enables her to know that the world is a safe place. It lets her know that mommy is there for her, which enables her to take on new situations. She is sure that when she gets hurt, mama will be right there to comfort her, with the boob if necessary.

So I'll keep going until she is ready, no matter what anyone thinks. I already see the tide is slowly turning and we will be done soon. During this trip to the pool she announced, "NO BOOB SNACK AT THE POOL MAMA!" This was totally unprompted. I guess letting them find their own way really does work. :)

Changing the View - Putting the "Eats" Back into BrEAsTS!

Everyone wants to do their best for their baby, but with so many conflicting opinions and social pressure to "get your life back," many moms find it hard to find the time, energy, and willpower to go the distance as far as breastfeeding is concerned.

Change is Coming

Things are changing. While the formula companies of the 40s and 50s were successful in getting women to think their boobs were not as good as their substitute, we are slowly gaining our lost ground. Organizations like the World Alliance for Breastfeeding Action (WABA) are taking on the misinformation from the formula companies and we are starting to see more normalization of a perfectly normal, ordinary, and beautiful bodily function. With breasts on the cover of Time magazine, used in the way that they were intended, you can see how far we've come. Natural does not equal dirty, no cover-up is needed.



Still the battle wages in the pediatrician's office. Instead of a list of donor moms whom mothers of slow weight gain babies can go to in case of an emergency, they are handed a can of dried powdered chemically altered cow's milk loaded with additives in an effort to try and match what has been found naturally in mama's milk. The problem is that these additives are in a chemically made form, and are not as good as the bio-available form of the nutrient found in boob milk. The formula manufacturers cannot duplicate what is in mother's milk, and trying to do so may be more dangerous than we think.

Duped AND Degraded

From 2001 to 2009, I was one of those misled mamas. Even though the World Health Organization announced that donor milk is preferred over formula, I was chastised by my pediatrician for using donor milk from a single trusted source. I left the office with my 5-day-old with a sample can of formula and tears streaming down my face.

This was 12 years ago, but I still remember the shame I felt from the doctor's uneducated stance on milk-sharing. With the formula shortage front and center in current news, we finally may see a permanent turn to milk-sharing as the primary source of infant supplemental feeding.

So the battle for thoughts wages on, including battling the opinions that come out of the mouths of our health professionals. The facts are clear though, breastfeeding cuts healthcare costs, decreases the likelihood of cancer for both mom and baby and cuts the rates of infant mortality and illness.

Now we just need to convince the public so moms aren't shamed for doing the best they can for their little ones.