Home Birth Safety

A report in the British Medical Journal¹ concludes that, for low-risk women in the United States and Canada, home births (using certified professional midwives) are as safe as hospital deliveries. More than 5,000 home births were analyzed in this study, which found a 0.17% mortality rate, comparable to hospital births. About 13% involved a transfer to a hospital, but for some reason (maybe this will pique someone's curiosity), medical interventions such as forceps (1%), Caesarean sections (<4%) and epidurals (<5%) were required less than half the time than would be expected in a hospital setting.

1.       BMJ, June 18, 2005.

Caesarian Cavities

A small study from the New York University College of Dentistry suggests babies born by Caesarian section will be more susceptible to dental cavities later in life. The researchers found these infants showed earlier colonization of a type of bacterium (Streptococcus mutans) implicated in dental decay. They suspect the relatively sterile delivery mechanism prevents normal bacteria colonization from the mother's birth canal, which would ordinarily make it difficult for S. mutans to gain a foothold.²

2.       Journal of Dental Research, September 2005.

More Caesarian Births

Britain's Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists reports that record numbers of women have been undergoing the surgical birth procedure in recent years. The latest figures show that twenty percent of expectant mothers undergo Caesarian section to deliver their children. This compares to just three percent only 30 years ago. About half of the obstetricians surveyed in this study said that the rate was higher than it should be. The World Health Organization suggests that levels of 10-15 percent are reasonable. Critics of the procedure cite serious health risks to both the mother and baby, often just for the sake of convenience. About 37 percent of the surgeries are nonemergency choices made by the patient.⁸

8. Reuters, October 26, 2001.

Bacterial Wagon-Circling

Researchers studying bladder infections involving E. coli bacteria have discovered some interesting behavior. The bacteria appear to burrow into the layers of the bladder and form clumps or slime-covered "pods" that protect the germs from antibiotics.⁹ The authors of this study suggest that the pods are analogous to multicelluar organisms, working together for protection and the common good. The findings may explain why some patients suffer repeated bouts of infections; the bacteria organize and hide out until the danger is past, then the pods break open and bacteria again proliferate. The researchers feel this is probably going on in many areas of the body and intend to study other types of illnesses, such as childhood ear infections.

9.       Science, July 4, 2003.

Dental Danger

According to New Scientist magazine, people with a weakened immune system should be wary of a visit to the dentist. Testing at 21 dentist offices in southwestern England showed a high level of opportunistic pathogens (above safety standards) in most of the water samples taken from dental unit water lines, components of those tools the dentist uses to rinse your mouth and suck out excess saliva. Bacteria isolated included mycobacterium and legionella (which are associated with some severe forms of pneumonia) and streptoccoci. Most of the bacteria found are associated with the oral cavity, leading researchers to conclude that they originally came from patient saliva.¹¹ Some of the highest counts were from units that had recently been sterilized or used bottled water, measures suggested by British and American dental associations to reduce such problems.

11. New Scientist, August 30, 2000, reporting on a study published in Applied Environmental Microbiology.

Pacifiers May Increase Ear Infection Risk

It's estimated that 75-85% of children in Western countries habitually use a pacifier during infancy and early childhood. Although pacifier use has long been considered a relatively harmless habit, recent evidence points to increased risks of oral/dental problems and recurrent ear infections (acute otitis media, or AOM).

A study in Pediatrics examined pacifier use as a potential contributor to AOM by pairing 14 well-baby clinics in Finland, with one clinic in each pair designated for intervention and the other clinic serving as the control. At intervention clinics, parents were instructed to limit their children's pacifier use during visits to the clinic; at control clinics, no such recommendation was offered.

Results showed that in 272 children at the intervention clinics, pacifier use decreased by 21% and the incidence of AOM decreased by 29% compared with children (212) at control clinics. Overall, children who did not use a pacifier continuously suffered 33% fewer episodes of AOM than children who did use a pacifier, leading the authors to suggest limiting pacifier use to "moments when the child is falling asleep."

Reference: Niemela M, Pihkari O, Pokka T, et al. Pacifier as a risk factor for acute otitis media: a randomized, controlled trial of parental counseling. Pediatrics, Sept. 2000: Vol. 106, No. 3, pp483-88.

Pacifiers and Ear Infections

A new study from Finland reports that babies older than six months that are allowed to use pacifiers tend to suffer from ear infections more often. They found about fifty percent more cases of otitis media in such children in this study of 400 babies. The researchers suspect that sucking interferes with proper drainage of the Eustachian tube.⁹ The researchers propose that after six months pacifiers should be used only when the infant is put down to sleep, and discontinued entirely after 10 months.

Pediatrics, September 2000.

Antibiotics: Improper Treatment for Ear Infections

Another paper published in the British Medical Journal¹ reproaches doctors for prescribing antibiotics routinely for ear infections in their pediatric patients. It reports on an analysis of existing studies relating to such treatment and concludes that not only is the practice a waste of time and money, it appears to be harmful. Antibiotics don't speed recovery (in fact, at least one previous study suggests that they lead to more recurrences) and liberal use promotes proliferation of stronger germs. British researchers estimate that 97 percent of physicians routinely prescribe antibiotics for ear infections.

1. BMJ, July 23, 1997.

Breast-feeding Cuts Infection Risk

Researchers have compared breast-fed infants to those given formula during the first seven months of their lives and quantified some of the immunological benefits of breast milk. Infants who were bottle-fed were 80 percent more likely to suffer from diarrhea, and had 70 percent more ear infections. The authors say that even small amounts of breast milk, such as supplemental feedings by mothers who cannot exclusively breast feed, are beneficial.⁵

5. Pediatrics, June 3, 1997, Internet edition.

Breastfeeding and Diabetes

A report published in The Lancet⁶ says that breastfeeding seems to help protect children from developing diabetes later in life. The paper says that the most common form of the condition, non-insulin-dependant diabetes, was significantly lower among adults who had breastfed for at least two months as babies. The study was done on 720 Pima Indians, a group that for some reason seems to be prone to diabetes and related problems.

6. The Lancet, July 19, 1997.

Soy Milk Hormones

Researchers at Children's Hospital Medical Centre in Cincinnati say that babies being fed soy milk are getting a very large dose of estrogen-related compounds. They found that phyto- estrogens are very prevalent in the product. Blood tests revealed blood levels of the chemical up to 22,000 times higher than normal in the infants, but comparisons are difficult since the amount normally present is negligible. Experts are not sure what effects are likely from such intake, though the substance is thought to impact sexual and reproductive function.⁸

8. The Lancet, July 5, 1997.

Average Medical Physician Ignorant about Breast-Feeding

A nationwide survey of physicians most likely to be treating pregnant and breast-feeding mothers has found widespread ignorance about the benefits associated with breast-feeding. Also apparent was a lack of willingness to encourage nursing. For example, less than 20 percent of the respondents said they had taught new mothers breast feeding techniques.¹⁰

An amazing 25 percent said they did not believe that breast-feeding was the best feeding method for infants. This attitude is cited as the reason the U.S. has such a poor percentage of mothers that nurse their babies.

Breast Is Best 

Why would chiropractors be concerned about breast-feeding? Chiropractors deal with muscle and bone; soft tissues, such as breasts, are just things to fill the empty spaces around the body and to add interest. Stay with me and see if this makes some sense.

There has been a four-decade decline of breast-feeding. Did you know that in 1900, 90 plus percent of babies were breast fed? It fell somewhat in the flapper 20's and then plummeted after WWII, to about 30 percent of babies. (Fortunately, in 1980 it is back up to 60 percent of babies now getting breast milk for at least a few months.)

We were taught in medical school -- where they knew everything -- that "science" had figured out an equally good modified cow's milk to feed human babies. It had more protein and was equal in all ways to human breast milk, was sterile, and the amount could be measured when delivered to the baby via the bottle. Some smart-aleck said that if women's breasts had been provided with flow-meters, there would have been no problem about encouraging nursing; we could always be sure the little suckers were getting enough.

Our only recourse in those days was to weigh the baby before and after. It was not enough to ask the mother, "Are you doing okay?" They had to be getting 2 ounces per pound, per 24 hours or off the breast and onto the bottle. What did our ancestors do two-million years ago? They nursed their babies or used a wet nurse.

The medical community allowed the milk companies to move into the newborn nursery and sabotage breast feeding. "Here's a little formula so the baby won't be so hungry, dearie," they said to the exhausted, vulnerable, new mother who welcomed the rest. Well, that pretty much stopped her flow.

Since then, every few years "science" has found something wrong with cow's milk as a substitute:

1. Anemia: Only a calf can absorb the iron from cow's milk.
2. Convulsions: One of the companies boiled the B6 out of the milk.
3. Another type of anemia due to folic acid deficiency. They forgot to add it when they sterilized the milk.
4. Dry skin and eczema from the lack of essential fatty acids. They did not think it was important enough to add.
5. Repeated ear infections due to the extra phlegm that the cow's milk produced in the allergic ones. It plugs up their Eustachian tubes; the bacteria love to grow in this mucus.
6. A higher incidence of infections in general. Diarrhea is more common in the bottle-fed.
7. If babies are breast-fed for six to twelve months, they have a higher intelligence score when they grow up -- in comparison to their bottle-fed peers.

Many of these babies developed crowded teeth -- partly because of the lack of adequate jaw stimulation, but also because cow's milk tends to be somewhat alkaline; hence calcium and magnesium are less available to form the bony structures during those early formative years.

These things do happen often in children fed dairy products. However, looking at it from a Functional perspective, there is a logical explanation for why it occurs.

1. Nursing requires work by the infant to express milk from the breast. To do so the infant presses their tongue into the roof of the mouth and move the jaw.

Bone growth is stimulated through pressure and release. The bones the teeth grow in are stimulated to grow through breast feeding. This bone growth allows room for the teeth to come in straight. Bottle feeding  doesn’t stimulate proper bone growth and contributes to asymmetric bone growth leading to grinding teeth in the child’s attempt to level their bite.

Chewing or jaw movement stimulates the release of digestive juices necessary to break down the food being eaten. Digestive chemistry is required to absorb and assimilate nutrients, i.e. proteins, calcium and magnesium. Poor digestive chemistry causes food to stay in the gut for prolonged periods resulting in food sensitivities/allergies, chronic inflammations, sinusitis, runny nose, etc.

2. Nursing requires the infant to develop a suction to draw the milk out of the breast. Much more that would be required to draw milk out of a bottle.

This suction developed during breast feeding draws the milk out of the Eustachian tubes and the digestive chemistry starts the break down of the milk. Digestive chemistry is also the first line of defense against bacterial infection of the digestive tract. Bottle feeding does not efficiently stimulate digestive chemistry.

SOT Chiropractic Craniopaths will see the end result of this early deprivation in narrow heads, crowded teeth, malocclusion, and temporomandibular joint (TMJ) syndrome. So the misguided notion that bottle formulas are better for the baby are inadvertently helped the orthodontists and the chiropractors.

We cannot imitate Mother Nature; we are to use her equipment whenever possible.

Infant Neglect and the Brain Drain

Another study¹ of the impact of maternal contact during infancy suggests one reason infant neglect impedes child development: brain cells seem to degenerate and die more quickly. While a certain number of brain cells are eliminated as neural circuits are established during growth, these researchers found that the cell death rate doubled in animals that lacked stimulation. The effect was especially evident in the hippocampus area of the brain. Further study is underway to examine the effects, if any, on the ultimate adult physical and social development.

1. Presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience in New Orleans, October 27, 1997 by Mark Smith. The research was done at the National Institute of Mental Health.

Womb Tunes

A British researcher⁶ reports that awareness and memory may develop sooner that previously thought, and in a different area of the brain. The cerebral cortex is thought to not be sufficiently developed by the 20th week of pregnancy to store memories. However, he has found that unusual melodies listened to by the three weeks after birth. He hypothesizes that the thalamus is responsible for this learning. Some scientists feel that this and other studies may help relate some behaviors to early pre-birth trauma.

6. Stephen Evans of Kelle University in central England, reporting to a meeting of the British Psychological Society, March 29, 1998.

Prenatal Stress

A study conducted at the University of California⁷ suggests that psychological stress in a pregnant woman can translate into temperamental and behavioral difficulties in her offspring. This preliminary research involved 120 infants and toddlers, relating maternal stress during pregnancy to resultant behavior using interviews and psychological testing.⁸

7. By Dr. Pathik Wadhwa et al., University of Kentucky Chandler Medical Center.
8. Presented to the 19th annual meeting of the Society of Behavioral Medicine, March 26, 1998.

Red Meat for Diabetes

Researchers from Purdue and Penn State Universities are suggesting that a type of fat found in red meats and cheeses may act to prevent adult-onset diabetes. Conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) seems to prevent this disease in laboratory animals, their study suggests, and does so as well as drugs developed for the same purpose known as thiazolidinediones.¹⁴

14. United Press, June 2, 1998, reporting on the work of Martha Belury (of Purdue), et al.

Placenta Size Related to Maternal Protein Intake

A study at Balor College of Medicine has found that restricting protein intake during pregnancy can decrease the size of the placenta by 21 percent, at least in pigs. This decreased size seems to have impaired the transport of nutrients to the fetus, stunting fetal growth.⁶

When protein intake was increased later in the pregnancy, the diminished nutrient transportation problem persisted, suggesting that the stunting is irreversible.

Single Moms and Crib Death

According to a British statistical analysis of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), the syndrome is more prevalent among babies whose mothers are not married. The rate is five times that of babies born to married couples. An increased incidence is also seen, though not to the same extent, when the mother is under 20 years of age; if birth occurred during the winter; or if the baby was a boy. The rate in Britain is 0.45 deaths per 1,000 live births. There is some dispute over the overall rate figures. Some critics note that many deaths are now being listed as "unascertained," which are not counted in SIDS statistics.³ Including these numbers would raise the rate to about 0.55.

3. Reuters, August 24, 2000, "Single mother babies show higher UK cot death rates."

Birth Age and Infant Survival

A new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association⁵ strongly suggests that babies born even a few weeks early are more likely to die within their first year of life. This is causing some concern to researchers, because more and more doctors are scheduling births early (inducing labor or using C-sections) as a convenience. From statistics on 4.5 million births during the 1990s, researchers found that babies born at 34-36 weeks were almost three times less likely to survive a year, compared to full-term infants. Babies born at 32-33 weeks had six times the risk. Deaths were predominately due to infection, respiratory problems and SIDS.

5. JAMA, August 16, 2000.

San Francisco Breast Cancer Rates

You may recall that in the January 30, 1995, edition of this column, I reported on the fact that San Francisco Bay women have the highest rate of breast cancer in the United States and possibly the world. Many suspect a toxin of some kind, but Stanford University researchers now say they believe it's lifestyle-related. They report that San Franciscan women have fewer children and breast feed those children much less frequently. Onset of menses and menopause are also earlier and later, respectively, for some reason, and this too seems to affect cancer rates.⁶

6. United Press, July 4, 1997.

Mammography Screening: Not Decreasing Breast Cancer Mortality

Danish research published in The Lancet² concludes that mammography screenings are not decreasing breast cancer mortality. Researchers based their conclusions on a hard look at eight previously published works. Most studies suggested a benefit, but two showed none. Those last two, say the Danish researchers, were the only ones to use an adequate randomization. The study was prompted by statistical evidence from Sweden that showed no decrease in breast cancer mortality since screenings began in 1985.

2. The Lancet, January 8, 2000.

Top of the page