VSRF Live #167: Women and Health with Dr. Christiane Northrup

Join us this Thursday on VSRF LIVE for an enlightening and essential discussion on Women’s Health in a Post-COVID World, featuring the esteemed Dr. Christiane Northrup M.D.

How soda can slowly kill you

Breaking news: Sugar is bad for you! 

I know, I know -- you'd have to be soft in the head to think this stuff won't damage your heart… but judging by the always-rising sales of sugary drinks, that message hasn't exactly sunk in with the masses. 

Now, a new study confirms -- surprise, surprise! -- that sugar will wreck your insides even if you're perfectly slim on the outside… and that women in particular face the highest risks. 

Soda, bottled teas, juice drinks, energy drinks, and those crazy "coffee" concoctions from Starbucks -- you name it, researchers say women who drank just two a day over five years were 400 percent more likely to have high triglycerides than women who didn't drink the stuff, no matter what they weighed.

What's more, those two daily drinks threw glucose levels so far out of whack that these women -- yes, even the thin ones -- were already facing a higher risk of diabetes. 

But I don't need to see yet another study on this -- just the ingredients labels on those drinks: A single can of soda contains TEN teaspoons or sugar, while a small bottle of that garbage contains 16. 

How can that NOT wreck your insides? 

Don't think you can get yourself off the hook by switching to diet soda -- because if there's anything worse for you than sugar, it's the chemical sweeteners used in low-calorie drinks. 

And the worst of the worst is the most common artificial sweetener of all: aspartame. This lab-created monstrosity has been linked to cancer, dementia, premature birth, migraines, seizures, and more. 

In other words, if you're at all interested in keeping healthy, avoid both sugary drinks and diet drinks. 

Coffee, tea, seltzer, water (filtered by reverse osmosis) and even booze are all much better options. 

Getting bitter over sweets, 

William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.

Birth as we know it

We can be much kinder

We Can Be Much Kinder from The Other Side of the Glass on Vimeo.
"My brain and my heart are my temples; my philosophy is kindness." -- Dalai Lama

This is a revision of the short that was originally done for the Birth Matters Virginia contest in May, 2009. We Can Be Much Kinder is also a chapter in the film, The Other Side of the Glass and expands upon this video short.

This short is about the importance of leaving the mother and baby intact -- cord intact -- until the mother feels she and baby are ready to be separated.

This film has brief images of a woman's breast and nipple as she is with her newborn baby as his cord is cut and as he crawls to the breast to self-attachment. This process, called Self-Attachment and/or Breast Crawl is becoming known now as a very critical part of human development that has been disrupted by modern, medicalized birth.

Give your sperm a vitamin D speed boost

By William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.

The strongest sperm are the fastest swimmers -- and if your little ones are doing the doggy paddle, don't expect to break into the daddy business anytime soon. 

But don't give up, either, because there's an easy way to get your little swimmers speeding along like Michael Phelps -- and that's with a nutrient you should be getting anyway: Vitamin D. 

Looks like bikinis aren't the only things at the beach that can kick a man's sex gears into overdrive! 

Dutch researchers examined D levels and semen quality in 300 healthy men, and found that those with less than 25 nanomoles of D per liter of blood produced slowpoke tadpoles. 

Men with a more robust 75 nanomoles per liter, on the other hand, had hard-charging sperm capable of backstrokes, breaststrokes, and butterflies -- or at least a faster, straighter journey to the egg. 

What's more, the researchers found that low-D sperm got a speed boost once they were exposed to the nutrient -- but that shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who's been keeping up with the science on this. 

Several years ago, researchers found that sperm actually have their own vitamin D receptors -- and since sperm don't exactly have room for excess baggage, you know those receptors are there for a reason. 

Put it together with the new study in Human Reproduction, and it's increasingly clear that vitamin D is practically fuel for sperm, giving them the turbo charge they need to find, penetrate, and fertilize the egg in the short time they have to get the job done. 

Other studies have also exposed the link between low D and male fertility problems -- and the animal science here is even clearer. 

In one study, researchers found that rats low in D were less likely to reproduce -- and once that deficiency was corrected, they went on to father pups with typical rodent fruitfulness. 

All we need now is an honest-to-goodness clinical trial pitting D against a placebo in men with sperm problems -- but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for someone to invest the time and money needed to do it right. 

Instead, invest in a comfortable beach blanket so you can get the sunlight you need to make your own D -- and a quality supplement to keep those levels high even when the sun is low.

More moms give birth at home

Homebirths are on the rise -- and the mainstream couldn't be more terrified. 

New numbers show homebirths shot up by 20 percent between 2004 and 2008 -- with 27 states showing increases and only four with declines. 

Add it all up, and homebirths are enjoying a genuine renaissance -- reaching a peak not seen in 20 years. 

And by every indication, they're going to continue to rise, which has obstetricians and gynecologists absolutely livid. After all, this homebirth trend represents B I G risk. No, not to moms or their babies -- it's a risk to doctors' bank accounts! 

These guys only get paid when they deliver a baby -- and most of them will only deliver a baby in a hospital. So when a woman gives birth at home, it's usually done with a midwife -- not a doctor. 

And that's the REAL reason these docs are so dead-set against home births. 

In reality, having a baby at home is a lot more comfortable than giving birth in a hospital. And despite what you've heard, it might even be safer. 

Drug-resistant superbugs such as MRSA have been turning hospitals into their own private playgrounds -- and they represent a real threat to anyone who sets foot in one, especially moms and infants. 

I haven't seen any recent studies on how frequently newborns are infected in maternity wards and neonatal units, but I've seen enough news reports to know the problem is very real -- and it's about time researchers looked into this. 

I won't say that makes homebirth right for everyone -- there are definite advantages to having the technology of a hospital and a team of doctors at your disposal. 

But if you're in a low-risk pregnancy and you want to give birth in the comfort and cleanliness of your own home, don't let anyone bully you. 

It's your baby -- and your right. 

Special delivery, 

William Campbell Douglass II, M.D. 

Birth without vilolence

Interview with Frederic Leboyer

Delayed cord clamping, wisdom birth

If the placenta is left attached to the umbilical cord (and baby) after birth for a while, it keeps transferring stem cells, nutrients, antibodies, and "extra intelligence" to the baby--just like it was designed to do, and just like traditional practices from around the world.Robin Lim, world-famous midwife, explains the how and why of it. See www.RobinLimSupport.org for more details.

Hydroxyprogesterone - preventing pre-term birth

Big Pharma's naked greed on display

SHAMELESS!

I've never seen anything like it: A drug company has taken a treatment used for more than 50 years, slapped a patent on it, jacked up the price 15,000 percent... and then threatened to sue anyone who keeps making and selling the tried-and-true version.

It's a hormone called hydroxyprogesterone, and until now women at risk of a preterm birth were able to get it from a compounding pharmacist for $10-$15 a shot.

Now, for reasons that defy all logic, the feds have given KV Pharmaceutical Company the patent for this decades-old treatment, which will be sold under the name Makena.

And if you're facing a preterm birth yourself, you can now get this shot for just $1,500 a pop.

Since most women need 20 injections, that's $30,000 for a full treatment for something we KNOW can be sold profitably for $10 a shot.

But you won't find it at that price anymore -- the company has already set their lawyers loose on compounding pharmacists, warning them to stop making it... or else.

Think that's bad? That's nothing -- because believe it or not, that's not even the biggest outrage here.

Ready for it? The company itself hasn't spent a red penny getting this drug tested -- all the research behind it was done already, including one study from the National Institutes of Health.

That's right... YOU paid for that one.

The company says it's going to foot the bill for new research, but c'mon -- this is obscene by any measure.

At this point, it's fair to wonder how the March of Dimes feels about all this. That's their thing -- preventing preterm births, right?

They're just fine with it!

"The drug is expensive but it's a very important drug for a very important purpose," Dr. Alan Fleischman, March of Dimes medical director, told Time magazine.

Expensive? He seems to have forgotten the part where it was doing just fine at $10 a shot.

Meanwhile, Time says the charity just so happened to receive "hundreds of thousands of dollars" from the KV subsidiary that's going to market this drug.

That's a lot of dimes.

Dropping a dime,

William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.

Delayed cord clamping

By Midwife Info

"Immediate clamping of the umbilical cord can reduce the red blood cells an infant receives at birth by more than 50%, resulting in potential short-term and long-term neonatal problems." So concluded Judith Mercer, CNM and colleagues in a study reported in the fall of 2001 in the Journal of Midwifery and Women's Health (Mercer, 2001). "Early clamping of the umbilical cord at birth, a practice developed without adequate evidence, causes neonatal blood volume to vary 25% to 40%. Such a massive change occurs at no other time in one's life without serious consequences, even death. Early cord clamping may impede a successful transition and contribute to hypovolemic and hypoxic damage in vulnerable newborns" (Mercer, 2002).

A quick look at Varney's midwifery textbook says that the timing of cord clamping is "controversial;" Williams' obstetrics textbook notes that delayed clamping results in shifting an average of 80 ml. of blood from the placenta to the baby, increasing the iron stores and reducing the frequency of iron deficiency anemia later in infancy. Nonetheless, despite no evidence for the benefits of early cord clamping and overwhelming evidence that delayed clamping is beneficial, almost all obstetricians and many midwives just cannot wait to clamp and cut that cord. In a survey by Mercer of the habits of nurse-midwives, she found that about a quarter clamped before 1 minute after birth; slightly over a third clamped from1 to 3 minutes; and a third clamped after pulsations cease (Mercer, 2000). The clamps and scissors are readied ahead of time and, as soon as the baby is out, before there is time to assess how he is doing or to hand him up to the arms of his waiting mother, the big, fat, living, pulsing cord is clamped in two places and severed between, often spraying blood from the force of the pulsations. In the interests of being family-friendly, the scissors are frequently handed to the dazed and wide-eyed father, who hasn't had time to take stock of the momentous event that has just occurred, nor to have a good look at his baby. "Here, dad, you want to cut the cord?"

Why this hurry? There seems to be a fear that something just terrible will happen if the baby is not separated immediately from his lifeblood, from the placental oxygen and nutrients that have nourished him for nine months. Or is it just a rush to get on with things, to get this case finished up and move on to the next one? Recently, an additional rationale for early clamping of the cord has been promoted - collecting that precious cord blood to be saved, either for use in this baby's later life, for another individual, or for research. By clamping umbilical cord blood at an early stage, researchers obtain "a greater number of CD34+ cells" (Pafumi et al.). But wait a minute!  Those CD34+ cells belong to this infant! When they are "harvested" for another purpose, there is a great possibility that this infant is being robbed of substances that he needs for normal growth and development. It makes intrinsic sense that, during the incredible transition from intrauterine to extrauterine life, while he is trying to take his first breaths and fill his lungs with air, the baby can benefit from the additional oxygen coming from the still-attached placenta.

On the website Cord Clamping.com, there are suggestions that the practice of early cord clamping may have far-reaching detrimental effects on the infant, such as autism, infant anemia, childhood mental disorders and hypoxic ischemic brain damage. These hypotheses do not seem far-fetched, considering that the infant is being deprived of half of his blood supply. (See the web site for an explanation of the basics of the cord clamping /brain damage issue.)

In her study, Mercer reviewed cord clamping studies from 1980 to 2001. According to her results, "five hundred thirty-one term infants in the nine identified randomized and non-randomized studies experienced late clamping, ranging from 3 minutes to cessation of pulsations, without symptoms of polycythemia or significant hyperbilirubinemia. Higher red blood cell flow to vital organs in the first week was noted, and term infants had less anemia at 2 months and increased duration of early breastfeeding. In seven randomized trials of preterm infants, benefits associated with delayed clamping in these infants included higher hematocrit and hemoglobin levels, blood pressure, and blood volume, with better cardiopulmonary adaptation and fewer days of oxygen and ventilation and fewer transfusions needed. For both term and preterm infants, few, if any, risks were associated with delayed cord clamping." Mercer noted that longitudinal studies are needed to confirm the benefits of delayed cord clamping.

In one study of preterm infants in Louisiana, delayed cord clamping significantly reduced the requirement for blood and albumin transfusion. It also increased the initial hematocrit, red blood cell count, hemoglobin levels, and mean blood pressure (Ibrahim et al.). In another study of very premature babies delivered by cesarean section in Germany, cord clamping was delayed for 45 seconds. The researchers concluded that this practice "is feasible and safe in preterm infants below 33 weeks of gestation. It is possible to perform the procedure at caesarean section deliveries and it should be performed whenever possible. It reduces the need for packed red cell transfusions during the first 6 weeks of life" (Rabe et al.). Finally, in another study of babies born to anemic mothers in India, a randomized controlled trial, the risk for anemia at three months of age was almost eight times higher in the early compared to the delayed clamping group (Gupta et al.).

Waiting until the cord has stopped pulsing is such a simple thing. It requires no additional skills, knowledge, protocols, or investment in equipment or supplies. It has no social, political or economic ramifications; no one is opposing it. Only infrequently is a cord so short that the baby cannot be placed on his mother's breast with the cord intact, and in those instances a simple explanation about the importance of waiting will reassure the mother. If all of us - midwives, physicians, nurses, doulas, families, and childbearing women - remember the importance of this simple act, and gently remind one another to wait before clamping the cord, we can optimize the chances for our babies to make a successful transition to extrauterine life, minimize newborn anemia, and perhaps prevent significant problems in later life.

References

Gupta R, Ramji S. Effect of delayed cord clamping on iron stores in infants born to anemic mothers: a randomized controlled trial. Indian Pediatr 2002 Feb;39(2):130-5

Ibrahim HM, Krouskop RW, Lewis DF, Dhanireddy R. Placental transfusion: umbilical cord clamping and preterm infants. J Perinatol 2000 Sep;20(6):351-4

Mercer JS.Current best evidence: a review of the literature on umbilical cord clamping.J Midwifery Womens Health 2001 Nov-Dec;46(6):402-14

Mercer JS, Skovgaard RL. Neonatal transitional physiology: a new paradigm. J Perinat Neonatal Nurs. 2002 Mar;15(4):56-75. Review.

Mercer JS, Nelson CC, Skovgaard RL. Umbilical cord clamping: beliefs and practices of American nurse-midwives. J Midwifery Womens Health 2000 Jan-Feb;45(1):58-66

Pafumi C, Milone G, Maggi I, Russo A, Farina M, Pernicone G, Bandiera S, Giardina P, Mangiafico L, Mancari R, Calogero AE, Cianci A. Early clamping of umbilical cord blood and foetal CD34 enrichment. Acta Med Austriaca 2001;28(5):141-4

Rabe H, Wacker A, Hulskamp G, Hornig-Franz I, Schulze-Everding A, Harms E, Cirkel U, Louwen F, Witteler R, Schneider HP. A randomised controlled trial of delayed cord clamping in very low birth weight preterm infants. Eur J Pediatr 2000 Oct;159(10):775-7