author: Dr. Jai Maharaj

subject: Re: story focus

text:
REVOLUTION IN DIET AND MEDICINE

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 SPECTRUM, Number 24, May-June 1992
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dr. Neal Barnard is President of The Physicians
Committee For Responsible Medicine, a nationwide group
of physicians that promotes preventive medicine and
addresses controversies in modern medicine. In April
1991, he and three other doctors unveiled a proposal to
replace the old Four Food Groups concept initiated in
1956.

In his book, "The Power of Your Plate," Dr. Barnard
documents the scientific evidence supporting a low-fat,
vegetarian diet as the most potent regimen to reduce
risk of heart disease, cancer, weight problems and
food-borne illness. Aside from serving as a practicing
physician on the faculty of the George Washington School
of Medicine, he is also an Associate Director for
Behavioral Studies at the Institute for Disease
Prevention.

Spectrum: Could you tell me a little about your
background?

Neal Barnard: I grew up in North Dakota, and I was
completely oblivious to nutritional issues. I ate the
pork-chop-and-roast-beef diet that everybody else eats
in that neck of the woods. My father was a doctor, and
my grandfather was a doctor, but we have four people in
my family that are cattle raisers. I think all of us,
both the people that were eating cattle and the people
that were interested in medicine, really didn't
appreciate the links between diet and illness.

I had a job at McDonald's in high school, but my first
year of medical school I started to become sensitive to
a lot of issues, one being the relationship of diet and
disease. I would say this awareness was aided and
abetted by a realization of what animals go through in
agriculture, which is grotesque. Most people don't see
it, but I did growing up. Only later did it start to
make sense to me, and in the first year of medical
school I became a vegetarian.

I started the Physician's Committee For Responsible
Medicine in 1995 with an aim of taking on lots of
issues, not just preventive medicine. In that area, for
example, we publish a magazine called the Guide to
Healthy Eating. Its goal is to provide user-friendly
nutrition information, with little recipe cards in every
issue that you can tear out and put in your recipe file.
The magazine is also used as a hand-out for patients in
doctors' offices.

We have a nutritional program for businesses called the
Gold Plan. If you're working at IBM, or wherever, at
lunch time in the cafeteria you can get nutrition
information on healthy, totally vegetarian foods.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The key is that we have to go beyond the recommendations
that most conservative medical organizations have been
using . . . I'm not discouraging people from getting
medical care when they really need it, but I am
encouraging people to take advantage of what they can do
on their own . . .
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As I mentioned, our organization has taken on other
issues. We've done quite a lot to promote alternatives
to animal research. We've done some work against
unethical human research, and made trouble in various
other ways. You can make a lot of friends and a lot of
enemies doing this kind of work.

Spectrum: Should people sometimes think twice about
going to the doctor? What are some important ways you
think that people need to take responsibility for their
health care?

Neal Barnard: The first key is to recognize that your
power is far greater than the power that a physician
might have. By that I mean that once you have heart
disease, the capacity that your doctor may have to limit
it, or reverse it, is far less than the power you had to
prevent it from occurring in the first place, or even to
reverse it through lifestyle measures. I'm not
discouraging people from getting medical care when they
really need it, but I am encouraging people to take
advantage of what they can do on their own, which is
phenomenal.

Even two, three, or four years ago, we did not know that
the plaques in your coronary arteries could actually
dissolve with lifestyle measures alone. We now know that
they can. Dr. Dean Ornish has established beyond any
reasonable doubt that a combined program of vegetarian
diet, modest exercise, stress reduction, and not smoking
can accomplish this. That sort of regimen will actually
make those plaques start to disappear without medicine,
without surgery, and, relatively quickly. Within one
year he achieved demonstrable changes in most of the
patients he studied.

The key is that we have to go beyond the recommendations
that most conservative medical organizations have been
using. By that, I mean the American Heart Association,
the American Cancer Society -- their recommendations
will not reverse heart disease. A 30% fat diet with lean
meat, chicken and fish is not going to reverse anybody's
heart disease, nor will it prevent it. You can look at
such a diet and know that that's the case. Chicken, fish
and lean meats have cholesterol and saturated fat in
them; they have no fiber or complex carbohydrates.

Spectrum: Recent studies showed that fat reduction down
to 30% did not help much. Because of this, some people
now are saying that you don't really need to worry about
fats.

Neal Barnard: Yes, that is actually one of the most
devastating effects of poorly done research, or maybe
poorly interpreted research. For example, there was a
very large, and I believe well-done, study of nurses
done through Harvard University, but I think that its
results were so poorly interpreted as to have the effect
that you've just described. The results were as follows:

It has been known for a very long time that animal fat,
and to a lesser extent, all fats, increase the risk of
breast cancer. The reason is that fats increase the
production of estrogen in the body, and that, in time,
over-stimulates the cells of the breast and they become
cancerous. There are other reasons, also.

In this Harvard study, thousands and thousands of nurses
were tracked year after year -- what they ate, their
incidence of illnesses, and so forth. During a four-year
period, the researchers noticed that those who had
somewhat less fat in their diet, as well as those who
had more fat, had the same risk of breast cancer. They
interpreted that to mean that changing your diet doesn't
help.

If you look more closely, those who were eating the
least fat were still eating about 29% of their calories
as fat. That's not very far under the average in
America. But compare that to Japan. When Japan was at
its very lowest incidence of breast cancer, Japanese
women were eating 7% or 8% of their calories as fat.
That would be about the typical amount found in a
low-fat, vegan diet.

The fat intake of nurses in the study ranged from 29%
and up. All of them are at high risk of cancer. It's the
equivalent of saying, "if I'm smoking two packs of
cigarettes a day, and I cut down to one, will that
reduce my risk of having lung cancer?" And, you may find
it doesn't. If you, then, interpret that to mean that
smoking doesn't matter, you've made a grave error.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The meat-eating women are eight times more likely to
have breast cancer. The genetics are the same...so
that's not a factor.
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Likewise, there was a study recently where they did a
statistical analysis of the benefit of reducing the fat
in your diet to about 30%, and they concluded your
average person would gain only a month or two of life,
overall. Well, that doesn't mean diet doesn't work, it
means that modest changes in your diet don't work.

So, that's the message I want to get out to people. If
you change your diet, and do it very vigorously, you
have enormous power. You can reverse heart disease. You
can prevent it. You can, I believe, prevent most cases
of cancer if you combine dietary changes with avoiding
tobacco. You could prevent probably 70% or 80% of
cancers, just by those steps alone. And, obviously,
there's a whole host of other diseases that you would be
able to live without.

Spectrum: I've talked to some people who dispute those
studies indicating the superior health of traditional
Japanese people. These critics say that a lot of
Japanese died young because their lives were harder or
less sanitary, and this left only the healthier ones to
be counted in the studies. Or, that their longevity
might be due to some kind of genetic effect. People come
up with all kinds of reasons why this epidemiological
information isn't accurate, but I assume the researchers
controlled for those variables.

Neal Barnard: The fact of the matter is, there is not
just one, but many, many studies, and not only looking
at the Japanese in their own society, but looking at
them as they changed their diet, and adopted ours.

Spectrum: When they come to America?

Neal Barnard: When they come to America, or even wealthy
Japanese women living in Tokyo or Osaka eating a western
diet with meat every day, compared to poorer people in
the same area who are not eating meat. The difference in
breast cancer risk between a Japanese woman eating meat
every day, and a Japanese woman who isn't, is a factor
of eight. In other words, the meat-eating women are
eight times more likely to have breast cancer. The
genetics are the same in these cases, so it's not a
factor.

If a Japanese family comes to the U.S., their children
eating a Western diet will have the same risk of breast
cancer as the Caucasians living around them, and here
again it is not an effect of genetics.

The other things that you mentioned -- sanitation and so
forth -- the Japanese put us to shame in this area, and
their longevity is greater, not less than ours.

Diet has to be one of the reasons for their good health.
That's not to say that I think everyone should adopt a
Japanese diet without thought. There are things wrong
with the diet. In some cases there is too much salt and
too many pickled foods, and so forth. But you can take
the best of both worlds.

Spectrum: I first heard about your work in the
newspapers. I believe the U.S.D.A. had developed a
"pyramid" of foods to replace the Four Food Groups. Your
association then proposed a new, entirely vegetarian
Four Food Groups. Can you tell our readers a little
about what your intentions were, and about your Four
Food Groups? What kind of reaction did you get from the
medical establishment?

Neal Barnard: The old Four Food Groups are meat, dairy,
grains, and vegetables/fruits. That's a prescription for
premature mortality. That's a prescription to kill off a
sizable percentage of the population and it's the
prescription that all of us learned as we were going
through school. It started in 1956, after years of other
various schemes that the Department of Agriculture had
developed. There used to be more food groups than four.
Science has come a long way in the 36 years since.

Spectrum: What was behind the development of the
original Four Food Groups? Was there any political or
economic thrust behind it, or was it concerned totally
with health?

Neal Barnard: I think the original idea probably stemmed
from a desire to educate people about simple steps they
could use to stay healthy However, it has been used
essentially as a promotional campaign for agricultural
products. Dairy products got their own group, and it was
prominently featured. If you look at the fine print on
the posters that are in schools, it indicates that the
Dairy Council has put these out. They print the posters,
and they still promote the old Four Food Groups because
it increases sales of their products. It's the same with
the meat producers.

The original Four Food Groups is completely out of sync
with all the science that has gone on since that time.
We now know that people who eat no meat at all -- who
violate the Four Food Groups - - live longer. They have
less incidence of disease and they are thinner. People
who avoid dairy products, far from showing signs of ill
health, are healthier than people who consume dairy
products.

We felt that we had to rewrite the Four Food Groups --
continue to use the idea of a simple tool that kids
could learn in school, but have it be something that is
in sync with modern science. The new Four Food Groups
are grains, vegetables, fruits, and legumes -- legumes
meaning anything in a pod, such as peas, beans, lentils.
If that were the basis of nutritional teaching, we could
revolutionize the health in this country.

When we first made this proposal, it wasn't just me
standing up at the podium and waving this around, we had
Dennis Burkitt with us, the British doctor who
discovered the value of fiber. He spent years in Africa
comparing different diets, and is one of the most widely
respected cancer researchers in the world. He came to
Washington and said "Yes, the new Four Food Groups could
save a lot of lives."

Colin Campbell, the head of the China health study, also
came to Washington and endorsed it, as did Oliver
Alabaster, a cancer researcher. So, we felt we were on
very solid ground with this, and, we certainly are.
There's a wealth of research behind it.

By the way, the new Four Food Groups is going to come
out as a curriculum for seventh and eight grades a
little bit later this year. So if teachers want to teach
it, and throw out the old Four Food Groups, I would be
honored.

There was a good deal of response to our new Four Food
Groups, and it differed depending on who was giving it.
The press was, by and large sympathetic to it, and, so
was the public. They would raise appropriate questions,
such as, "Will you have strong bones without dairy?" and
the kinds of things that people wrestle with when
they're first looking at this. But, lets face it, the
press has known for years that heart disease is not a
question of bad luck or genetics. It's a question of
what's on your plate. So, it was no big surprise.

People have been criticizing the meat industry for
years, but the criticisms of dairy products were new to
many people, and I was surprised at how well-received
that was as well.

The only real criticism I think came from conservative
medical organizations who have been promoting weaker
diets for years, and certain agricultural producers. The
fruit and vegetable growers were delighted. The rice
growers thought this was the best thing they ever heard
of. But, the livestock producers naturally fought it
with the same venom that the tobacco growers have fought
tobacco legislation.

That happens, you expect it, but you've got two choices.
If you were going to try to reform, to help America, you
can be honest and expect the flack you're going to get
and accept it, or you can sellout and lie to people. To
me the choice is very clear. You have to tell people the
truth, and they will gradually accommodate to it, and
hopefully see its wisdom.

We knew when we did this that the Department of
Agriculture would not say, "Oh, great idea, we'll change
the Four Food Groups." We knew it would be a long
process of acceptance, but we know we're right. What we
wanted to do, then, was kick off the process by getting
the public involved, getting them writing letters to the
editor and complaining. We wanted to work our way
eventually into the consciousness of the government, and
I think that process has begun, and I don't think it's
reversible.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The press has known for years that heart disease is not
a question of bad luck or genetics. Its a question of
what's on your plate.
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Let me say a few things about the recently proposed food
"pyramid." The pyramid was the Department of
Agriculture's plan to say that you should eat less meat,
but still eat it everyday. You should eat more grains,
vegetables and fruits, and de-emphasize the meat and
dairy, but still eat it. So, they created a pyramid of
foods.

At the very top, in the smallest part of the pyramid,
was sugars and oils, and that was supposed to be
something you have only rarely. That's why they gave it
the small part of the pyramid. And then, under that was
meats, which you're supposed to have more of than the
sweets and oils, but not as much as grains. Then, I
think, it was dairy, and then under that was vegetables
and fruits, and then the grains.

The visual image was supposed to emphasize grains, but
one problem with it was that it had meats near the top,
so meat looked like the pinnacle of nutrition. Before
they released it, they experimented with turning the
pyramid upside down, so that meat would be near the
bottom, but the Department of Agriculture claimed that
"female consultants" felt it looked unstable that way,
so they decided to keep it right side up.

We knew the pyramid was coming when we released our new
Four Food Groups, and we thought the pyramid was
virtually no better than the original Four Food Groups.
The pyramid, how ever, was embraced by a lot of
dieticians, because it did de-emphasize meat.

The pyramid lasted three weeks. Department of
Agriculture went back to the drawing board because the
livestock producers wouldn't stand for it. They lobbied
very heavily, and it was pulled back.

Spectrum: In my travels or reading I have discovered no
culture in the world that ate a truly vegan diet (no
meat or dairy). Everywhere I have been or read about,
the diet contained small amounts of animal foods, so I
wonder if small amounts might be necessary. Should the
new Four Food Groups eliminate meat and dairy entirely?

Neal Barnard: The Four Food Groups, as we presented it,
wasn't trying to say what the totality of the diet
should be. It only said what the basis, the foundation
of the diet should be -- grains, legumes,
vegetables, and fruits. Anything else is an option. So
if a person has a bowl of ice cream once a month, that
isn't violating the new Four Food Groups.

With the new Four Food Groups, there's a whole range of
possibilities, some of which are healthier than others.
If you ask me, as a doctor, what's the healthiest diet,
I would say it is a low fat vegan diet, without any
animal products included. It's true that almost all
cultures, maybe all cultures, do have some animal
products in them, although they might vary a little bit
as to what that would be and with the amount. I suspect
the reason is not a nutritional need for it, however. I
really don't think so. This is because animal products
are something that was not part of our evolution as a
species.

As I say in my book, The Power of Your Plate, prior to
the Stone Age, we didn't have the capacity to hunt
animals. We didn't have spears, axes, or bows and arrows
until about two million years ago. Yet, we have lost our
canine teeth that would help, say a chimpanzee, if they
want to get hold of a little monkey and tear it to
shreds. They could do that because they have long,
protruding canine teeth. Those were lost to our species
at least three and half million years ago. So, during
the critical phase of our evolution as we were
differentiating from other primates in becoming the
species we are now, it is almost certain that we were
eating a vegan diet.

Was there some inclusion of insects or something? Who
knows, but we almost certainly must have been vegan,
eating a diet very similar to what other primates were
eating.

All that changed when we acquired the technology of
tools. Once you have the capacity to have something that
was not part of your evolution, your capacity to
regulate it goes haywire. So, in America now, people
have the capacity to eat meat. People tend to crave it,
I think because of its grease content or because of some
other characteristic. People do tend to crave it, even
though they pay a health price in the long run.

The same is true of alcohol. Look what happened to the
American Indian population when alcohol was introduced.
It had not been part of their evolution, hadn't been
part of anybody's evolution, obviously, and alcoholism
became a very serious problem. The same is true of
sugary foods, cocaine, tobacco -- anything we don't have
built-in mechanisms to cope with. I think that's true of
meat.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
If you ask me, as a doctor, what's the healthiest diet,
I would say it is a low fat vegan diet, without any
animal products included.
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

How do I know that people are healthy without it? There
are studies that have compared ovo-lacto vegetarians to
meat-eaters, and the ovo-lacto's do better than the
meat-eaters do in terms of incidence of cardiovascular
arrest. There are also studies of pure vegetarians
(vegans) -- no milk, eggs or meat -- comparing them to
ovo-lacto vegetarians, and the vegans tend to do better.

I think B-12 is an interesting issue though, because
there isn't B-12 in plants, so where were people getting
that?

B-12 isn't made by plants, and it's not made by animals.
It's made by one-celled organisms -- bacteria, and so
forth. Obviously, as we were evolving as a species, our
foods had a fair amount of natural contamination with
bacteria. You can imagine us picking up root vegetables,
shoots, leaves, and fruits, and so forth, and back then
we weren't sterilizing these things and processing them.
Nor were we brushing our teeth. There has been a fair
amount of research showing that even the bacteria that
live in people's mouths can produce some B-12. Was that
the source? I don't know.

Keep in mind that the daily requirement for B-12 is
extremely small. The RDA is only 2 micrograms per day --
not grams, not milligrams, just 2 micrograms. The actual
amount you need is only about a half of a microgram
daily, and that amount could well have been supplied by
bacterial sources.

Nowadays, in modem culture, everything is sterilized.
Even the miso you buy in this country is all
pasteurized, and it's dead. In Asia, miso is loaded with
B-12 because of the bacteria that are involved in its
production. Meat eaters do get B-12, but my hunch is
that meat probably was not the source as we were
evolving.

Spectrum: There are many different kinds of "vegetarian"
diets. Some types include dairy, some fish, some even
chicken. Can you talk briefly about all of them?
Particularly, why do you recommend against dairy food?

Neal Barnard: I have ten main reasons why dairy food is
not good for health.

The first reason why I don't consume dairy products, and
why I think other people should not, is the fat content.
The fat in dairy products is saturated fat. Now, it is
true there are skimmed milk products: skim milk, skim
yogurts, and maybe one or two low-fat cheeses. But just
on fat alone, you've ruled out butter, cream, sour
cream, ice cream, nearly all cheeses, and whole milk
products. The fat is saturated fat, and you may as well
be eating beef tallow. The fat in these dairy products
encourages heart disease and numerous other problems.
It's a risk factor for some forms of cancer as well.

Number two is the cholesterol content of dairy products.
It's the same story as the saturated fat. Number three
is that dairy products really are not effective in
slowing osteoporosis. This was their big selling point
for years, but studies have been done measuring bone
density, particularly of post-menopausal women, the
group that is at highest risk. There is no correlation
between bone density and the intake of dairy products,
or, for that matter, any other sources of calcium. In
other words, women have progressed to severe
osteoporosis in spite of consuming a large amount of
milk.

Now any first year medical student would say, "Well, of
course, we know that bone density, the calcium content
of bones, is not something you could change just by
eating certain foods. It is hormonally regulated." There
are things that certainly do affect bone density, but
calcium intake probably is not one of them. A recent
study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
showed that this is not only true for older women, but
even for young women and men as well. There really isn't
a good correlation between how much calcium you take in
and the strength of your bones as you reach adulthood.

Next is the milk sugar. The natural sugar in milk is
lactose. It's what we call a disaccharide, a double
sugar. It breaks down in the body to glucose and
galactose. Galactose is a simple sugar that infants can
break down effectively, because they have a variety of
enzymes in the body to do that. As you age, you lose
those enzymes to a degree. Different people lose them
more quickly than others. What that means is that
galactose can have a certain toxicity as you age, and
for women, it attacks the ovaries.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I don't consume dairy products...and I think other
people should not either. I have ten main reasons why
dairy food is not good for health.
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Daniel Kramer, at Harvard University, published an
elegant study comparing women with cancer of the ovary
and women who did not have cancer. The differentiating
factor between these two groups was their consumption of
dairy products. Does that mean that every women that
consumes yogurt is going to get cancer of the ovary? No,
but it is elevating one's risk.

By the same mechanism, or a similar mechanism, galactose
is linked to cataracts. It enters the body, probably
through dairy products in most cases, and can be
absorbed into the lens of the eye. Infants who are born
with a genetic defect in their capacity to break down
galactose get dense cataracts within the first year of
life. I believe that dairy products are probably a
contributor to cataracts in older folks. I say that
because there are epidemiologic studies showing that the
incidence of cataracts is not uniform across cultures.
It is much higher in countries where dairy products are
consumed. There are other contributors, such as
ultraviolet B and others, but dairy seems to be one of
the principal suspects here.

Another issue with dairy is lactose intolerance. This is
something which does not affect most Caucasians, which
is why all the Dairy Board advocates you see are all
fair-skinned people, the only people who drink milk.
Asians and Africans and many others have trouble
consuming dairy products; they can't digest the milk
sugar.

Spectrum: Yet, people living in these countries eating
the traditional diet have very strong bones.

Neal Barnard: Exactly. They do not have osteoporosis
with the same incidence that we do.

Milk is the number one cause of food allergies. There
are other causes, such as wheat, corn, and with some
people, soy products, but milk is number one, and any
pediatricians experience would agree with that.

Insulin-dependent diabetes is much more common in
countries where dairy is consumed. The putative link is
that the dairy protein kicks off an autoimmune reaction
in which antibodies attack the dairy protein,
inadvertently damaging the cells of the pancreas that
produce insulin.

Milk is extremely low in iron, and if you're concerned
about iron deficiency, milk is not a food you want to
consume.

Babies get colicky from drinking milk, and they're also
colicky if their mother is consuming milk. We now know
that the cow's antibodies can be absorbed into the
mother's digestive tract, and through the bloodstream
reach her milk, then baby. I believe it was the April
1990 issue of Pediatrics that laid this out and said
that the baby will be colicky if the nursing mother is
consuming milk.

So there are several reasons not to drink your milk.

Spectrum: What about chicken and the different kinds of
fish?

Neal Barnard: Number one, chicken is not a health food
by any stretch of the imagination. The poultry industry
has been trying to capitalize on the criticisms that
beef is now getting and they tell people to eat their
products. But there are several reasons not to.

Number one, chicken has the same cholesterol content as
beef. This always stuns audiences when I tell them,
although it doesn't stun dieticians who write
nutritional analyses -- they've known this for years.
Every four ounce serving of beef has 100 milligrams of
cholesterol in it. A four ounce serving of chicken has
exactly the same -- 100 milligrams of cholesterol. It
can be somewhat lower in fat, but not a lot lower in
fat.

The leanest beef has 30% of its calories as fat. The
very leanest chicken is about 20%. Compare that to
beans, with 5% of calories as fat. Rice is even less,
maybe around 7% or 8%. A 20%-fat food with no fiber, no
complex carbohydrates, and a fair load of cholesterol is
not a healthy food, and that's what chicken is. Even
selecting only the white meat and taking the skin off,
it is not a low-fat food.

What is worse is that chicken and meat displace the
healthy foods in our diet. I mean, if you're eating 300
calories of chicken, that's three hundred calories of
rice or whole grain products or green vegetables that
you're not eating. So it's not just the bad stuff it
gives you, it's the good stuff that it pushes off the
plate.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Chicken is not a health food by any stretch of the
imagination . . . Chicken has the same cholesterol
content as beef.
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Another interesting thing, and this is getting press
everywhere, one out of every three chickens at the
retail store has live salmonella bacteria growing under
the plastic. The reason is that every chicken goes into
the slaughter operation after having lived its
eight-week life in a factory situation -- a big steel
building with ten, twenty or thirty thousand chickens
all swimming in chicken feces. Nobody sweeps around them
during their entire life. They're just boxed up and sent
to slaughter.

Salmonella lives in chicken feces, and the process of
slaughter actually tends to push this fecal
contamination into the skin of the chicken. At the end
of the slaughter procedure, their heads are cut off,
their corpse goes through a cold water bath to cool it
down so it doesn't rot, and the water bath...it might be
kind of clean for the first thousand or so corpses that
go through it, but eventually it becomes what CBS News
called "fecal soup."

People get the chicken home, slit open the plastic, and
you know that little bit of juice that dribbles down on
your counter, people think that's chicken juice.
Chickens are not fruits, they do not have juice. That is
the water bath stuff that the chicken absorbed, along
with a little blood and serum, etc. One out of three
packaged chickens has live salmonella. That causes maybe
four million or more cases of salmonella poisoning a
year, and about nine thousand deaths.

I think if people can't wean themselves of chicken, they
ought to leave it on their steps outside their house,
and go outside and eat it, because once you bring it in,
it contaminates surfaces. You can't see the salmonella
bacteria, You can get it on a sponge, and the
contamination of utensils is the biggest problem. The
greatest incidence of salmonella comes from cross
contamination to infants. Three month old babies
actually get more salmonella than anybody else.

Spectrum: What about fish?

Neal Barnard: There are several things about fish. I
don't eat fish, and there are many reasons why I don't.
The good things you can say for fish is that some of the
species are lower in fat by a long shot compared to
meat and even poultry, and some have a little bit less
cholesterol. Some have more cholesterol, however, like
lobster and shrimp. Some actually are higher in fat,
while some are lower. That's the entire extent of the
good news about fish.

The bad news about fish is that it all has cholesterol
and fat, and the fat is not the kind that anybody needs.
These omega-3 fats that people talk about are also
available in beans. In the American Journal of Clinical
Nutrition, there was a recent series of letters and
commentaries saying that people should probably get
their omega-3 fats from vegetables and not from fish,
because the omega-3 fish oils do seem to have a variety
of negative effects, one of which is that they promote
the production of free radicals. Free radicals can
damage your tissues and lead to cancer.

There is also a contamination problem with fish. The
February cover-story of Consumer Reports talked about
this. The contamination problems with fish are ghastly.

Salmon and other kinds of swordfish are very
contaminated. There are even warnings that women who are
intending to become pregnant any time in the next
several years shouldn't consume several species of fish.
The EDB content is so high, and it is stored up in human
tissues. There was a study at Wayne State University on
women who had given birth to babies. Those who never ate
fish were compared to those who did eat fish. The latter
group, even those who ate fish once a month or more, had
a higher incidence of babies who were sluggish at birth,
who had small head circumferences, or who had a variety
of learning problems.

Fish is a concentrated protein, and if anything we need
less protein. High protein in the diet leads to
osteoporosis and kidney problems.

You don't need fish.

Spectrum: If it's not a good idea to eat fish and
poultry, and we are no longer consuming wild vegetables
as did the people in traditional societies, do you
recommend a B12 supplement or any other kind of
supplement?

Neal Barnard: I do recommend a B12 supplement for
anybody who, like me, is on a vegan diet. If you start a
vegan diet, you have about a three-year supply of B12 in
your body. But after three years, or even before, people
should supplement with B12. I suggest you take a form
that says "B12" on it, or the chemical name,
cyanocobalamin. Some of the forms that people thought
were active, like chlorella or spirulina, may not have
active B12 in them.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Women who are intending to become pregnant any time in
the next several years shouldn't consume several species
of fish.
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

If you get a One-A-Day, or any common multivitamin, it
will have B12 in it. You don't need to be especially
careful about it. And, there are vegetarian supplements
made of algae that are perfectly fine. It's not
something you need to worry about or take every day. Get
the smallest size you can. Probably 50 micrograms is the
smallest size the store will sell you, and take it 2-4
times per week. By the way, I don't recommend other
supplements.

Spectrum: You are saying all these things that suggest
radical changes in the way Americans eat, citing several
studies to back up your views. Yet most doctors, who are
supposedly in charge of protecting our health, will be
eating a steak tonight or going out with the kids to
McDonald's. What's the problem? Is the research you are
citing debatable, or is it that it's hard to accept
something new? Why don't people eat this way?

Neal Barnard: I think things are starting to change.
Things change slowly, and doctors are creatures of
habit, and they'll probably be the last to change,
unfortunately. But there are some terrific new faces on
the horizon that are becoming widely accepted, such as
Dr. Dean Ornish, who has done brilliant, carefully
controlled research. He has received a tremendous amount
of attention from the medical community.

People doing work with diabetics, and certainly with
cancer, are getting a lot of attention for vegetarian
sorts of diets.

Regarding being vegetarian, I don't think the common
reaction anymore is that you must be in some sort of
bizarre religious cult. If I'm sitting on a plane and
get the vegetarian meal that I've ordered, the person
next to me will always say, "I'm pretty much a
vegetarian" or "I'm going that way." They want to be
vegetarian. Even if they're not that way, they know they
should be.

Doctors, like everybody else, are subject to the habits
they grew up with. It tends to cause a predictable
pattern -- sort of rationalization and resistance.

There's no doubt about it, however, we're going to win,
and there are lots of reasons. For example, there are
all these HMOs who are trying to give medical care at
fixed cost. It's going to be just a matter of time
before they realize that for every coronary bypass they
prevent, it saves them $20,000. Prevention is the key,
and the two biggest factors are changing diet and
avoiding tobacco.

The National Restaurant Association recommends having a
vegetarian section on the menu. One out of every five
restaurant-goers considers the ability to obtain a
vegetarian meal important when choosing a restaurant.
PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) now
has these "V" stickers for restaurants. They will be
displayed alongside the Visa and MasterCard emblems.

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
All these HMOs who are trying to give medical care at
fixed cost, it's going to be just a matter of time
before they realize that for every coronary bypass they
prevent, it saves them $20,000. Prevention is the key.
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The demand for vegetarianism is there, and I'm very
optimistic, not just about the distant future, but the
near future.

Spectrum: Health am is a big political issue now in the
presidential campaign. Can you comment on the situation?

Neal Barnard: Many people have been occupied with
something that I think is important, but secondary --
how do we have equitable distribution of health care.
That's an important issue, but I think it misses
something more powerful that could help solve the
problem.

Health care costs are simply accumulated health care
bills. The reason you have health care bills is because
you have sick people going to see their physicians. Now,
it is true that about 90% of heart attacks, and a
similar percentage of bypasses and some transplants, and
so forth -- none of these would be needed if people took
good care of themselves. Eighty percent of cancer is
preventable, or at least is tied to identifiable factors
that we know about. This is the National Cancer
Institute's estimate. Thirty-five percent of cancers are
due to smoking and 35% to 55% are due to diet. Other
causes are x-ray exposures, drugs, etc. We can control
these cancer factors if we choose to.

If we do that, we can keep people healthy. They won't
have to go see their doctor, there won't be a health
care bill generated, and the costs to private insurance,
to individuals, and to Medicare and Medicaid could all
plummet.

Spectrum: Doctors will have to become less wealthy.

Neal Barnard: Doctors should become less wealthy.

I think that the availability of insurance has insulated
doctors from their patients. My grandfather, when he
treated someone, might have gotten some vegetables as
payment, and his bills were low. Now, because of the
wide availability of insurance, doctors unabashedly
charge enormous rates because they know that the patient
actually isn't going to pay it. The patient does pay it
right away -- they pay it in the insurance premiums that
have been extracted from their paychecks, but it's been
smoothed out over the course of the year, and the
patients don't really mind these exorbitant fees.
Doctors are driving BMWs and Mercedes. I consider it
unethical, and frankly, it's becoming more grotesque
with time.

What I want to see in the future is a reduced demand for
health care. I want doctors to focus on people that
already are healthy, and ask what they can do to
maximize their health, because, hopefully, there won't
be sick people coming to see them and they need
something to do.

Spectrum: Do we need a new type of health profession,
given what we now know about the causes of disease? You
don't need as much training to help people prevent
illness as to cure it. Why have a doctor, who is trained
in complex operations and other disease treatments, give
people lifestyle counseling on how to stay well? It's a
waste.

Neal Barnard: Also, people like you are doing this.
Through an article you write, you are reaching a lot
more people than I would reach in a typical day. People
like you are the lifesavers, too. You take information
that other people have developed through research and
make it available to large numbers of people. My hat's
off to you and everybody like you who's getting the word
out.

Dr. Neal Barnard is the President of the Physician's
Committee for Responsible Medicine, P.O. Box 6322,
Washington, DC 20015. USA.

http://www.pcrm.com

Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti

In article <bsoBc.1960$[email]>,
 "derek" <(askme)@yahoo.com> posted:


author: Smark Jobber

subject: Re: story focus

text:
"Ovum" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Not at all.

While "Dodgeball" is lowbrow fare, it never pretends to be anything else.
"Terminal" is just another schmaltzy, slumming Spielberg pic that is in some
ways more offending to me than the Vince Vaughn movie (that has to do with
my personal feelings for Spielberg's career...yeah, I realize that sounds
rather odd). Plus, neither movie is gonna make that much money...compared to
that webslinger movie.

More distressing to me is the fact that "Shrek 2" become the 6th highest
grossing movie ever.

And even sadder, we live in a world where "White Chicks" will make more
money than movies like "The Fog of War," "City of God," "Eternal Sunshine,"
plus a thousand others more worthy of attention.

But that's life among general audiences.


author: Snoopy

subject: Re: story focus

text:
Johnny Judas Jay "the jackass jyotishithead" Maharaj wrote:

  The Real Misinformation Campaign is PCRM's

By Brian Carnell

Wednesday, January 23, 2002

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine has been waging an all out
attack on the dairy industry which PCRM claims is "conducting a massive
misinformation campaign." But Harvard professor Daniel Cramer complains
that PCRM has been misusing his research studies into dairy products.

Over the past three years, PCRM has repeatedly cited Cramer's research
as evidence that consumption o dairy products contributes to cancer.
Cramer, however, told CNSNews.Com that this is a misrepresentation of
his research. According to Cramer,

     We don't have the scientific proof to say that it [milk] has
definitely been linked to cancer. I think that particular group has
their own sort of agenda, of not wanting milk production around, and
cows to be utilized. Their agenda is that [they] don't want . . . cows
exploited or they want everybody to be vegetarians.

CNSNews reports that Cramer did concede there are some links connecting
lactose consumption with cancer in mice, but that that does not prove
the sort of definite link between milk and cancer that PCRM claims.
Besides which, of course, PCRM's position is that research with animals
is inherently invalid, so they would certainly dismiss even this thread
of evidence.

When CNSNews tried to get PCRM's reaction to Cramer's comments, it
reports they were told by PCRM communications director Simon Chaitowitz
that, "We have nothing to say about this." (PCRM with nothing to say?
Who would have thought that day would ever arrive?)

CNSNews also notes that a researcher that PCRM cited back in October as
providing evidence against milk also disputes PCRM's use of her research.

In that case, Dr. June Chan published a study in the American Journal of
Clinical Nutrition that hypothesized a causal connection between milk
and prostate cancer. PCRM issued a press release with Neal Barnard
chiming in that "there is every reason for men to avoid cow's milk
altogether."

But when contacted by CNSNews, Chan had a different take on her
research. "We do not recommend that people change their diets or stop
drinking milk," Chan told te news organization.

Kudos to CNSNews.Com for pursuing this story and getting the real story
rather than just the smoke and mirrors that PCRM would like people to see.

Source:

Harvard Prof Claims Misuse of Data To Push Anti-Milk Agenda. John
Rossomando, CNSNews.Com, January 23, 2002.


author: Victoria Frerichs

subject: VENT:  My formerly perfect DH

text:
I know I've ranted to all of you before about how I believed that the nurses
at the hospital Craig was born in supplemented him, due to the fact that I
didn't believe they brought him to me often enough that first night (or the
second, for that matter).  The first night they only brought him once, the
second twice.  If I'm recalling correctly, and I think I am.  I've also
ranted about this to my DH for the past 13 months, swearing that I would not
let Gizmo out of my sight as I believe Craig's early preference for a bottle
was due to this, which contributed to his early weaning.  Anyway, you've
heard it all ad nauseum, I'm sure.

Yesterday, while in the company of friends, DH slipped up.  I was discussing
the situation with a friend of mine who was visiting from Texas, and he
admitted that he told the nurses they could give him a bottle if they
thought he needed it.   Um, EXCUSE ME?  He never told me this before, though
he swears he has (to cover his ass, he swears he has!).  I *know* I told the
nurses and doctors NPO was the rule of the day, and that Craig should be
brought to me even if I was sleeping.  He says he told them that because he
was "more worried about Craig getting enough to eat, and about my 'state of
hysteria' when Craig had latch issues".  Craig did NOT have latch issues
until the second day, and I never entered a state of hysteria while at the
hospital after his delivery.  I *knew* that there would be latch issues at
first and that Craig would probably lose weight until my milk came in, and
that it was *perfectly* normal for them to lose some weight.  I will admit
to doing so about a week later, when Craig first started fighting the
nursing and demonstrating his preference for the bottle, and I couldn't get
him to latch.  When I think of all that I went through, from Craigs second
hospitalization all the way through to his eventual TOTAL weaning, and
*knowing* that most of it probably stemmed from those first TWO days of his
life now, I can't even begin to speak of how incensed I am.  I keep looking
at this man who sat with me while I pumped for Craig every two hours during
his second hospitalization, who has always been ready to bring him to me in
the night for nursing or change the poopy diapers when I'm nauseated or just
give me two hours alone to nap, and I can't even *begin* to think how I'm
going to trust him not to counteract my wishes with regards to this issue at
the hospital with Gizmo.  Can I even leave Gizmo alone with my DH while at
the hospital??  15 minutes to shower while rooming in, even?? I mean, a
nurse might come in and determine he needs a bottle, and DH might just hand
Gizmo right over!

I can't tell you how, besides being angry about it, it simply hurts.

Victoria


author: Melissa

subject: Re: VENT:  My formerly perfect DH

text:
Sorry it took me so long to post.  I too, would be upset if my dh did this.  I
can understand where he was coming from, and also where you were coming from.
Our husbands see us go through so much that they want to help and they don't
realize sometimes that what they do will make it worse.

Talk to him.  Tell him.  Ask him not to let it happen next time because it
really really hurt.  Then hug and do something else.

Melissa
Mom to Ben (16 mos)

Victoria Frerichs wrote:


author: lisa

subject:
Re: Induced vs. Spontaneous Labor (was Re: VENT:  My formerly
	 perfect DH)

text:
----------
In article <[email]>,
[email] (Cheryl & Ian) wrote:

 It's an idea to consider. Honestly, I don't think we will have a kid
4--three of 'em are plenty (for us), I think!  But you never know <vbg>!

Lisa
Mom to 3


author: jiminy cricket

subject: Re: VENT:  My formerly perfect DH

text:
"Victoria Frerichs" <[email]> wrote in message news:<ag86c6$2pt$[email]>...
Keep in mind that some babies would nurse until they have gray hair
and some babies will wean themselves from the breast very early. Maybe
earlier than you planned. This is not considered an abnormal
occurence. Also, contrary to what some others have posted, all
positive attributes of breastfeeding are not thrown out the window if
a single drop of formula is ingested. I understand you feel betrayed
by your husband but before you castrate him go down to the hospital
and request copies of the medical record. Every feeding you gave your
son and any feeds given by a nurse will be recorded, as should a note
regarding your husband's statement giving permission to give formula
which countermands the previous request to breastfeed only . If I
understand correctly you are delivering again and have concerns
regarding this same issue. The best way to deal with this is to have a
written birth plan with all of your labor and post-partum instructions
ready to hand to the delivery nurse as well as the postpartum nurse.
These will go on your bedside chart. Also, when you are transfered to
the postpartum unit ask to speak to the unit manager and explain
everything to her. Very nicely ask her to make sure all of her charge
nurses pass to the bedside nurses your instructions. If she's not
there ask for the charge nurse and talk to her and also ask her to
notify the nursing supervisor that you would like to speak to her
about it. The more people you talk to, the more people will pay
attention. But please be nice-I'm a nurse and not all of us are
uncaring of these requests and most will go out of their way to
accomomdate you. When you talk to the manager/supervisor/charge-nurse
ask her the hospital policy on rooming in. Many hospitals will allow
you to keep the bassinet in the room overnight as long as the baby is
healthy and you put baby back into it when you are ready to go back to
sleep (for safety reasons). I hope these ideas help ease your
discomfort with trusting the nurses at the hospital. As for your
husband, I know you're pissed (I would be too!)but when you continue
to rant about the 'dastardly deed' that was 'done' to the baby and how
horrible he is for lying you are reinforcing his idea that you aren't
reasonable and his determination to keep you happy at all costs, even
if that entails lying if he screws up again. This is just what some
guys do-backwards logic to me, but I know a lot of guys just like
this. Seeing how pissed off you still are I doubt he will repeat this
particular mistake. In fact, HE will probably be warning the staff to
keep the bottles away. Remind yourself that you have spent most of the
past two years pregnant and your hormones may be raging-especially
this close to the due date of your second baby. best of luck!


author: Rose Kish

subject: Re: Induced vs. Spontaneous Labor (was Re: VENT:  My formerlyperfect DH)

text:
lisa wrote:
...

I've wondered about both the Pitocyn and Stadol I received. I felt both
came on much too strong for me. I was more unconscious than conscious
during the labor. They had to scream at me to "wake up".


author: Cheryl S.

text:
lisa wrote:

I don't think there is any doubt it would have been better if you had
been left on a low dosage.  That nurse sounds absolutely mental.  I'm
sorry to hear she made things so horrible for you.


text:
----------
In article <xAqX8.94138$[email]>,
"Circe" <[email]> wrote:

<snipped>

My first labor was spontaneous and totally unmedicated (unless you count the
locals at the end). It completely sucked. Not because of the pain. I could
handle that. I had a nurse who kept screaming at me because I was throwing
up. She was mad because I had to pee. She was a witch. Her yelling made me
nervous and just generally miserable.

My second labor was induced--no locals needed. It was bad. I got an epidural
and I don't regret it at all. Honestly, I would have shot myself if I could
have. It seemed like there were no breaks between contractions. I could
never recover from one contraction before another one began, and I panicked.

My third labor also was induced--no locals. I asked for an epidural because
I got scared. Things were moving along and I wasn't in agony like with labor
2. I was terrified of what I thought was in store for me. I got the
epidural--and it didn't take. Turns out, I didn't need it. Labor/delivery 3
was a breeze.

If we have another baby someday, I will end up being induced again. (The
longest I have been in labor is a little over two hours. The longest I've
pushed is a few minutes. I live 75 miles from the only hospital I will give
in birth in. DH absolutely refuses to consider a homebirth.)

That said, for those who have normal labors and can get to the hospital in
time, I'd say do everything you can to avoid an induction. I give a lot of
credit and thanks to my CNM for making the third labor so easy. She told me
she'd start the pit slow and see what happened. I don't know if I am super
sensitive to pit, but just a little bit got me into an established labor
pattern. During my second labor, the nurse kept jacking up the dosage every
15 minutes. I wonder if she had just left me on a low dosage if things would
have been better.

Lisa
Mom to 3


author: Sharon L Bailey

subject: Re: VENT:  My formerly perfect DH

text:
On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, Circe wrote:

My first experience with cosleeping was in the hospital the night after
James was born.  It was about 3am, and I was standing in the doorway of my
room, trying to get him to sleep.  The nurse came by, and with a smile on
her face said, "You can go ahead and have him sleep with you in your bed.
They (the babies) tend to like it that way!"

Best piece of baby advice I ever got!

Sharon
Mom to James 6.2.00


subject: Re: VENT:  My formerly perfect DH

text:
On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Sharon Fitzgerald wrote:

At the hospital where DS was bore, the materity ward was a lock down ward,
which meant that only hospital personnel attached to that ward had access.
My DH and I had to wear corresponding bracelets which entitled us to move
in and out of Maternity, and that was it.  Visitors, family members, etc.
had to be accompanied by one of us into the ward.

I felt very secure and safe having James rooming in with me.  Then again,
he slept in bed with me - I don't think I had my hands off him the entire
time we were there, lol!

Sharon
Mom to James 6.2.00


author: Jolene

subject: Re: VENT:  My formerly perfect DH

text:
"Victoria Frerichs" <[email]> wrote in message news:<ag86c6$2pt$[email]>...

You're angry; you're hurt; you feel betrayed.  You feel that he
countermanded your instructions regarding Craig's feedings in the
hospital, and you're blaming him for all the problems you've had with
Craig since then.

He screwed up telling the nurses what he told them.  He screwed up
making a decision *for* you, another adult capable of making her own
decisions; and he screwed up making a decision regarding your child
that countermanded you.  And he screwed up keeping it all from you and
letting it slip 13 months later.

But that's all.  Calm down.  You emotions are running high right now.
So are your hormones; and your hormones might be fueling your
emotions.  Calm down; and talk to your husband.  Tell him how you
feel.  Tell him to consult you instead of making decisions *for* you.
If you think he made you look like a fool to the nurses and feel like
a fool in front of your friends; tell him that; and tell him to be
more considerate of your feelings from now on.

But don't play the blame game.  Whatever he told the nurses, you don't
know for sure that they actually fed Craig; and if they did, you don't
know for sure that all of the problems you had stemmed from the
feedings they gave him.  Some of my kids were supplemented in the
hospital and went on to successfully nurse for up to two years.
Others only nursed once or twice during those first two nights when
they hadn't been supplemented at all.  There's no way now to tell what
went on at the hospital; or what went wrong and why.  I know that what
you went through with Craig broke your heart, and you think you'd feel
a little better if you at least had someone or something to blame for
it all; but don't fall into that trap.  You don't need it; no couple
does; *ever*.

Here's the part where I'd tell you to move on; forgive him; everyone
makes mistakes; nobody's perfect; yadda, yadda, yadda...  He screwed
up; he'll screw up again; so will you.

This time around, engage the services of the hospital LC, LLL or a
post-partum doula.  WIC also has free counceling; and even if you're
not a client, they give classes on counceling others.  You can also
get online to other support groups.  There are many; they have
different 'personalities'; and some are more helpful than others.  But
my personal preference would always be in-person, hands-on help from
someone who knows your history.

I really hope breastfeeding goes better with Gizmo.


author: Aimee

subject: Re: My formerly perfect DH

text:
"Victoria Frerichs" <[email]> wrote in message
news:ag86c6$2pt$[email]...
nurses
the

Now why didn't you demand they bring him to you!!!!  Was he in Nicu or
something? This is what I don't get with hospitals.  They act as though our
babies are "their" possessions, and not *our* babies.  I only let me son
leave when absolutely necessary.  Otherwise, he was at my bedside, and most
of the time, he was at my breast in the hospital.  Each time they came in to
do vitals or whatever, I questioned them first.  Exactly *what* are you
doing to my baby, and why.  With my first, my daughter, she was in my room
the entire time, never left after she was born.

I've also
not
bottle

and you should not let him out of your sight.  That is the only way to
ensure that your baby is being treated and cared for the way *you* want him
cared for.  I don't blame you.
discussing

You know, I honestly think it's because of the way some medical staff can
come across.  They can seem condescending, and make you feel like you
couldn't care for a goldfish if left alone.  Maybe they put the pressure on
him, that the baby needed more to eat

Um, EXCUSE ME?  He never told me this before, though
the
he
of
get
his
during
in
just
at

Find out more, why he gave in, to the staff about the bottle....  then
explain how really wrong that was.  He probably isn't *as aware* as you
think he is about the whole bf relationship.  Maybe he didn't want to tell
you about the bottle thing, because he saw what happened as a result and
really felt guilty.

Can I even leave Gizmo alone with my DH while at
hand

I would be hurt and angry too!  First things first, I would write a letter,
contact the hospital and let them know what happened.  Then after you talk
to dh, and find out why he said that, what kind of pressure they put on him
at the time... etc.... make sure he understands the importance.  At least
ask you first!  If you find out that he really isn't supportive of bf, then
you really need to *take charge*...... at the hospital, don't let the baby
leave your bedside if he is healthy and fine and doesn't need to be in
nicu....., bf your baby very often... every 1-2 hours.  This helps bring in
your milk sooner, you can work on latch early on, you'll have a great
supply, and you won't be as engorged...... hopefully.  If the baby does need
to leave, you go with him.  If you are not able, then you denabd that vitals
or other procedures be done in your room.  Also, turn all that you have
learned into positive energy for your new baby.  You can make this work, you
will!  Don't let this stress interfere, and make you tense in those early
hours, when you need to really concentrate on nursing and establishing a
great bf relationship with your new baby.

Best wishes!!!!!! Aimee


author: Joshua Levy

subject: Re: VENT:  My formerly perfect DH

text:
"Victoria Frerichs" <[email]> wrote in message news:<ag86c6$2pt$[email]>...

I hope you feel better after venting.
But, if your DH was formerly perfect, you have now found out that he
has -- at worst -- made two mistakes: what he told the nurses, and
what he didn't tell you.  Personally, I think two mistakes in a year
of child raising is very good.  Surely much better than I've done.
Have you been perfect in that same time period?

Getting angry is OK.  Getting over it is better.  You and your DH
have a lifetime of raising kids ahead of you.  You can't stop trusting
a basically trustworthy person because they made a mistake.

(Also: I don't think one feeding the first night and two the second
is that that unusual.  Personally, I was surprized at how little my baby
ate the first 36-48 hours.)

Joshua Levy


author: Hillary Israeli

subject: Re: VENT:  My formerly perfect DH

text:
In <ag86c6$2pt$[email]>,
Victoria Frerichs <[email]> wrote:

*he swears he has (to cover his ass, he swears he has!).  I *know* I told the
*nurses and doctors NPO was the rule of the day, and that Craig should be

Why would you tell them NPO? You were going to breastfeed, right? He'd be
getting milk, right?

Anyway - sorry to hear about the communication problem b/w you and your
husband. I hope you get it resolved. Good luck.

-h.


author: Roseann

subject: Re: My formerly perfect DH

text:
UGH!! Victoria, I am so sorry that this has happened. I have no idea how
angry you must be, I mean, I know how angry I would be, so maybe that's
close. I think you should sit down and talk to your DH about this, tell him
how much you want the nursing relationship to work with Giz and that you
were so heartbroken about Craig's issues. Other than that, I have no advice.
((HUGS))


author: Cathy Kearns

subject: Re: My formerly perfect DH

text:
I'm hoping your vent helped you feel better.  But, as an
outsider, what I see is a wonderful mom, an adorable,
healthy looking baby boy, and a husband who might
not have been properly educated on how to start a
good breastfeeding relationship, but did have the best
interest of his newly made family at heart.  He thought
you needed sleep, and if the "professionals" thought the
baby needed a bottle... well, I'm sure at the time he
thought he was helping.  What I'm trying to say is, he
meant well, and after all that you ended up with what
you were going for, a healthy baby boy.  I wouldn't
toss him out of the hospital for his next babies birth.

Do talk to him, tell him how you feel, and how you
need to be a united front at the hospital.  But give
him another chance.

Cathy

"Victoria Frerichs" <[email]> wrote in message
news:ag86c6$2pt$[email]...
nurses
the
not
bottle
discussing
though
the
he
of
get
his
looking
during
in
just
at
hand


author: Karen and Joe

subject: Re: My formerly perfect DH

text:
I'd be fuming, so sorry you had to experience this. I would be soooo mad.
But, it sounds as if otherwise your DH has been quite good so perhaps a very
long, serious talk with him might help. Alternatively, how would he respond
if you wanted someone else in the hospital with you (perhaps in addition to
him, and, would that be possible anyway?).

Good luck

"Victoria Frerichs" <[email]> wrote in message
news:ag86c6$2pt$[email]...
nurses
the
not
bottle
discussing
though
the
he
of
get
his
looking
during
in
just
at
hand


author: Richard Steven Walz

subject: Re: VENT:  My formerly perfect DH

text:
In article <ag86c6$2pt$[email]>,
Victoria Frerichs <[email]> wrote:
---------------------------
No sex for him for two months, hang him out to dry, and if he can't get his
act straight it's divorce. File for trial separation before you even deliver
and then waive your separation at the nurses and make them eject him from
your room for the duration, and scream at him if he comes in, and don't
take a shower. Announce to the staff that you don't know if it's even his
child! Make him know that you are DEADLY serious about this!

What's even MORE important, show HIM THIS POST OF YOURS!!!!!!!
That's what *I* would do!! Absolute WAR AGAINST EVIL!

Betrayal of a holy trust in your parenting relationship and love
relationship is an ULTIMATE betrayal!!
Steve


author: Tatjana Farkin

subject: Re: My formerly perfect DH

text:
I'm so sorry, Victoria :-( After all you've been through to keep bf'ing,
it's a real bummer. How about giving him a good book about bf'ing to read
before Gizmo's arrival?!


author: Ms Poopei Pe Leah Pants Teh teh Hawaiirn Tropic Version 3.1a

subject: Re: VENT:  My formerly perfect DH

text:
On Sat, 6 Jul 2002 21:40:58 -0400, "Victoria Frerichs" <[email]>
wrote:

You have ranted about his for 13 months?  I think you need to get over it.

I seriously doubt this.

He said you were in a state of hysteria  at the hospital.  I would be mad at him
saying this.  It is disrespectful.

I think I would just talk to him about it and tell him how important bf is to
you and that him lying hurt you and was a betrayal.

I imagine he will say he is sorry and didn't mean to hurt you.

Then make up and forget about it.

Dragging resentment on and on for 13 months is damaging to your marriage.

Loev,

Ms Pants

usenet philosopher
***********************

Read my latest book:  Change Your Pants, Change Your Life

It's a dead man's party, who could ask for more.

***********************

Be normal and the crowd will accept you.
Be deranged and they will make you their leader.
 --Christopher Titus


author: Sharalyn

subject: Re: VENT:  My formerly perfect DH

text:
Victoria Frerichs wrote:

((hugs)) Victoria! I'm so sorry. That must be very hard to deal with
especially since Gizmo is due so soon. I don't have any advise since I
haven't been anywhere close to that kind of situation, but I can see how
devastating that must be to you when you worked *so* hard to have that
relationship with Criag. Best wishes on having a *great* bf relationship
with Gizmo!

Sharalyn
mom to Alexander James (9/21/01)


author: Sarajoyo

subject: Re: My formerly perfect DH

text:
Victoria, I have no advice for you, but I just wanted to tell you I'm sorry
you're having to deal with this.  I'd be incensed too, with my DH.

(((HUGS)))


author: Barb

subject: Re: VENT:  My formerly perfect DH

text:
Well, Victoria...who knew you would have started the next "watergate" by
posting a vent.... LOL!
Barb


author: Cheryl & Ian

subject: Re: Induced vs. Spontaneous Labor (was Re: VENT:  My formerly  perfect DH)

text:
"lisa " <[email]> wrote in message news:<fisX8.13$[email]>...

<snipped>

If proximity to the hospital is the only reason you feel you'd be
induced with any future children, why not consider just staying closer
by the hospital for a few days surrounding your due date?  It may
avoid any future unpleasantries such as you've described...

Just a thought,

theother Cheryl


author: Tess

subject: Re: Induced vs. Spontaneous Labor (was Re: VENT:  My formerly perfect DH)

text:
"lisa " <[email]> wrote

count the
I could
throwing
made me

Yuck! I'm afraid that my normally mild-mannered SO would've shot his
mouth off in that situation. Maybe that particular nurse should be
transferred to an area where bedside manners aren't important.....
like, say, the morgue.
  I was lucky, all of the nurses at my hospital were nice, and only
one was slightly ditzy. She didn't want to give me my heparin shots
anywhere other than in the stomach, because that's simply the only
place she had ever given them. It took 15 minutes to convince her
that I'd been taking them in the things, arms, and buttocks for two
months, with my doctor's blessing, and the one and only injection I
took in the abdomen was horrible. None of the other nurses even
batted an eye when I told them I'd rather not have the shot in the
stomach.
  Of course, the ditzy nurse was also the one who just couldn't
understand why my hand wouldn't quit bleeding after the IV was
removed. Hmmm, anticoagulants, bleeding? She was nice, she just
seemed like her mind was elsewhere at times.

an epidural
if I could
could
panicked.

I really, really wanted an epidural for a while, but wasn't a
candidate for one. Now, in hindsight, I'm kinda glad it worked out
the way it did. Michael was only 5 lbs 9 oz, and labor only lasted 4
hours, so it would've been overkill.

epidural because
with labor
the
Labor/delivery 3
again. (The
longest I've
will give
hospital in
a lot of
She told me
am super
labor
dosage every
things would

Sounds like a good possibility. They weren't really expecting the
pitocin to move things along as quickly as it did when they induced
me, and had told me not to expect a quick labor because it was my
first, blah blah blah. As mentioned above, Michael was out within 4
hours of the pit being started.


author: Sara

subject: hospital security (WAS Re: VENT:  My formerly perfect DH)

text:
Sharon L Bailey wrote:

That's the way it works at the hospital I'll be at, too. I'm curious,
though -- how big of a problem is kidnapping? Is it more to make the
parents feel secure or to address real threats?


author: Kandace Wright

subject: Re: VENT:  My formerly perfect DH

text:
"Jolene" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
news:<ag86c6$2pt$[email]>...

That is one of the most sexist comments I've heard.  It's an ignorant
comment.  Hormones have nothing to do with feeling betrayed or angry for
something that her husband lied to her about.

"Gee, your pregnant and your mad so it must be your hormones not anything
real."

Is that the way your husband treats you?  Down playing your feelings?  I'm
sorry if he does that to you.  I don't think anyone should do that.


author: P. Tierney

subject: Re: My formerly perfect DH

text:
"Aimee" <[email]> wrote
him

    In the other thread on this issue, it was brought up as to how much
the child was "her baby" as opposed to "their baby".  I hope someone
addresses the issue.

                                                                P. Tierney


author: Charlotte M.

subject: Re: VENT:  My formerly perfect DH

text:
"Joshua Levy" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

I'm finding this thread really interesting. I don't actually intend to
single out this post, as much as this post just happens to be the one in the
thread where I am responding.

The idea that her hubby made a mistake is not what is at issue, as far as I
can read.  We are all imperfect parents and we all make mistakes. No one
disputes that.

The point is that she has a parenting issue that she feels very strongly
about, specifically, breastfeeding. What she discovered is that not only
does her husband not share the same enthusiasm for the importance she places
on breastfeeding as a basic primary parenting decision, she also discovered
that her husband was not truthful to her AND that he undermined her right to
make a parenting choice that she felt was important.

What I see in the original post is that that she is upset about the
difference in opinions in the importance of breastfeeding, it is that her
spouse was unsupportive in a very passive manner AND that he did something
he knew would upset her. Clearly, if it was an accident, he would have told
her way back that he gave the nurses permission to give the baby formula.
She guessed that the nurses had given her baby formula, which should have
been his time to admit that he gave them permission. yeah, she would have
vented and possibly been made, but the truth would have been laid out
clearly. She would not have found out by mistake.

The idea that she should get over it, move on, and put it into perspective
is unreasonable. She is upset that her spouse undermined her and she feels,
justifiably, that he can not be trusted with her next newborn.  What she
needs is not to be told to ignore it and move on, she needs to be given the
support she needs to deal with it. Some people have been sympathetic, and
that's a better start than to tell her that she needs to get over it.

Very simply, she needs to figure out what is important to her. If
exclusively breastfeeding her baby is important and that a single supplement
is something that she feels is to be avoided at all costs, then she needs to
figure out how to deal with it AND she needs to figure out how she will
resolve this issue with her spouse.  In my experience, things that get
pretended into non-existance don't usually go away.

My question is this: how is she going to resolve this?

It is not up to any of us to tell her that she should not be angry. She
already *is* angry.

His intentions may have been as wonderful as can be, but as we all know, the
road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I'm confused. Are you saying that one feeding of *formula* is ok or are you
saying that one feeding of breastmilk/colostrum is ok or are you saying
something completely different?

Charlotte


author: Aimee

subject: Re: VENT:  My formerly perfect DH

text:
-
"Joshua Levy" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

<snip>

This hugely varies.  I understand what you're saying that some babies don't
each much after labor, but many do!  Even after labor drugs, then epidural
followed by c-section, Aidan came out sucking and hungry.  We went every 1-2
hours.  This one feeding may have made *all* the difference in Victoria's
situation.  This one feeding could have been devastating to her bf
relationship.

1.  The baby learned how to latch onto a bottle, which is nowhere near the
same as the breast.

2.  The baby was *filled up* with formula, when just a few drops of
colustrum was all he/she needed.

Just my .02

 Aimee
Breastfeeding Advocate, and lucky to be a SAHM to Amber-Ravelle born
9/18/98, and Aidan Hunter born 4/28/02
So proud of my breastfed babies!

Pictures of my babies -
http://hometown.aol.com/auburnmist1/myhomepage/index.html
Aidan Hunter's very own webpage -
http://www.babiesonline.com/babies/a/aidanhunter
Aimee Hood Photography - http://www.aimeehoodphotography.com


author: Victoria Frerichs

subject: LONG (was Re: VENT:  My formerly perfect DH)

text:
Wow, what a can of worms this post opened.

First of all, let me assure all of you who think I'm doing my husband some
kind of disservice by being angry at him that this is not at all the case.
I do *not* expect him to make absolutely no mistakes in child-rearing, nor
do I expect that of myself.  Of course I understand that those types of
mistakes can and will be made.  In the absence of other things which
happened to interfere with my nursing relationship with Craig, one or two
bottles in the hospital at the time of his birth would probably not have
affected us at all.

Let me state a few facts for those of you who are running rampant with
unfounded speculation:

1. Yes, we do know for a fact that Craig was supplemented *with formula* at
the hospital.  This is something that my DH admitted to me in the course of
our conversation the other day.  It was not sugar water, and it was not only
once.  Once the nursing staff received the OK from DH, the considered it a
carte blanche one, regardless of my repeated verbal requests to bring baby
to me if he woke in the night or at any time hungry and was not already with
me.

2.  While it is true that Craig is the child of *both* parents, and one of
us does not have more right in the rearing/raising of him than the other, DH
and I take that responsibility *very* seriously, which is why these issues
were discussed and researched at length before Craig was even born.  DH knew
and had a copy of the birth plan.  He was there when I wrote it.  He was
there when we discussed it with the OB and with the nurses upon checkin to
the hospital.  DH knew exactly what NPO meant, he knew what nipple confusion
was, he knew how important breastfeeding was to me and to Craig's health,
because we had done the research *together*.  What he did not know, which I
did, was that it was perfectly normal for BM to take a few days to come in,
and that it was perfectly normal for a BF newborn ( or any newborn, for that
matter) to lose a few ounces of birthweight.

3.  His claims that I was hysterical at the hospital after Craig's birth are
patently false, and I think the trauma of the extremely hard labor and the
difficult weeks afterward are more scarring for HIM than me, which is
coloring his recollections of the events.  Yes, I had a very difficult
labor, but I did not have a c-section, I was never unconscious, and in fact
had a second wind immediately after delivery.  We established a nursing
relationship right away (Craig really had no problem latching that first
time).  After he was nursed for approximately 40 mins, my doula helping me
establish latch, then the nursing staff took him to the nursery (DH went
with them, and this is when he gave them permission).  I ate a meal
(voraciously), got cleaned up, moved to the Mother Baby ward, waited an
hour, got up, walked the halls asking for my baby, went back to my room,
waited another hour, got up and walked the halls asking for my baby, repeat
ad nauseum until 5 hours have passed.  THEN they finally brought him back to
me.  I was not upset, crying, or hysterical at any time.  I was actually
quite giddy with love, and only wanted to snuggle my boy.

4.  Our hospital claimed to support rooming in, but they insisted that baby
be in the nursery during specific times:  Head Counts and Shift Changes.
One time, they took him for shift change and I didn't get him back until 4
hours later.  They also *strongly* discouraged baby being in the room while
mom was sleeping, to the point where the only way I could have kept Craig
with me was if I held him to my chest and protested vehemently.  Whereupon,
I'm sure, they would have had a chance to say I was hysterical.  :p~  DH and
my mother chose to go home to sleep, upon my urging actually, because they
had both been awake with me for 48 hours and DH at least was present during
the entire labor.

5.  OF COURSE I am still thinking about this 13 months later.  It is fresh
in my mind mostly because of the struggles we went through trying to
continue our nursing relationship, and my constant evaluation of things I
could have done/should have done differently.  If you aren't informed of all
the things we did to try to continue that relationship, then that may be why
you don't understand why I'm holding on to this.  It was pure hell, as most
MKBF'ers who were around at the time can attest.  It was my strong suspicion
that bottles had been given to Craig in the hospital, and that suspicion
turned out to be correct.  As I've already stated, those two days in the
hospital alone probably would not have been the issue in the absence of
other things which interfered, including a hospital stay the week after
Craig was born in which I was not allowed to nurse, only to give expressed
BM in a bottle.  These things were beyond our control, and hindsight gives
us the luxury of stating that it was a combination of all the above which
contributed to the issue.  Craig already *DID* have a preference for the
bottle by that point though, and fought the breast.  No, I don't dwell on it
daily, and no, I haven't obsessed about it in the 6 months since Craig has
been weaned, but I *have had to think about it* because I am *pregnant
again* and I am trying to do things that I did wrong or fouled up with Craig
due to inexperience or what have you *differently* for Gizmo.  That means
trying to understand what happened with Craig for the benefit of my second
child.  For those of you who think I need to "get over it", well, think as
you like.  I for one like to study the past and learn from mistakes.  In the
months and years following Gizmo's birth, I probably won't think about it
that much.  However, if 20 years from now it happens to cross my mind, and I
feel like ranting about it then, I damn well will. :)

6.  My sense of betrayal and hurt are the key issues in this vent.  Yes, DH
made a mistake.  I can accept that.  He's a first time daddy too.  What
hurts is when the exploration process began: I questioned things that I'd
done, things that he'd done, researched everything I could, sought help here
and with LC's and with doctors.  When I began expressing my suspicions that
Craig was supplemented at the hospital, *he didn't say anything*.  If he had
only said something at that point, I could have connected the dots and come
to a conclusion.  I might have still been a little angry, yes.  I might have
asked him why he would do such a thing.  It would not have been nearly the
issue it is now, though.

For those of you who have suggested the extremes (like "get over it" or
"divorce him"), I can assure you that neither of those options are in my
mind.  This too, shall pass, and DH and I communicate very well.  He's a
fabulous husband and father, and my partner in all things.  That is why I
vented.  I didn't think a partner would undermine me like that, or lie about
it later.  In his defense, he probably *was* worried about upsetting me, and
did think he was doing the right thing according to what the nurses
suggested.  Our new hospital is supposedly supportive of the things we want
in our birth plan, but then again, so was our last one.  I feel better that
we have a midwife this time, and a new doula as well.  We shall see.

I also wanted to point out that for all of you who sent words of
encouragement and suggestions, I sincerely appreciate them.  I even
appreciate those of you who responded negatively to my post. :)  But
Charlotte and Joshua I want to especially thank, because I think you guys
*GOT IT* more than anyone else.

So thanks. :)

Victoria


author: Marie

subject: Re: VENT:  My formerly perfect DH

text:
"Hillary Israeli" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
the

I'm sure she meant npo to be given by the medical staff, not herself.
Marie


subject: Re: My formerly perfect DH

text:
"Cathy Kearns" <[email]> wrote in message
news:6VOV8.1559$[email]...

    This is the only post that I agree with.  The CYA lying
is one issue, and hopefully he'll come to terms with that.
But the actions at the hospital were wrong, but unlike the
lying, wasn't with ill intent.  I don't know his point of view
and exact reasoning, but I can imagine circumstances which
would lead a DH to do such a thing.  But each word posted
by Ms. Kearns covers how I'd deal with him.

    I would also, in calmer times, find out exactly what he said
to them.  Did he initiate, or they?  If they did, or if it was
mutual, then they need a talking to.  I can't imagine a hospital
not consulting with the mother in such a situation.  Unless
the mother is completely out, it should be a part of their policies.
And, some places find out such info in advance.

                                                                        P.
Tierney


author: Karen Askey

subject: Re: VENT:  My formerly perfect DH

text:
In article <3d282703$0$79558$[email]>,
[email] (Richard Steven Walz) writes:

Hey, no use in punishing yourself :-)

No sex for him means no sex for me.  THAT's no fun

koa
Proud breastfeeder and SAHM to James Phillip 02/06/01
Madison, AL
http://hometown.aol.com/llllibrarian/myhomepage/profile.html


text:
Tess wrote:

Why not, if you don't mind my asking? Because your labor went so
quickly?


text:
-
"Tess" <[email]> wrote in message
news:ZtMX8.21761$[email]...
<snip>

Tess!  Can you even believe some of the nurses and dr.'s!!!!  I had the same
experiences.  My dr. was fine, but the nurse... everytime I got a new nurse,
they could not believe I was on heparin injections.  The charge nurse
insisted on giving me my injection, and I told her... noooo, I do them
myself... my dr. okay's this.  So she of course had to stand over and
supervise me amazed, at how quickly I wipped that needle around, flicked the
air bubble out, and then gave myself the injection, in my stomach.  I did
all mine in my stomach pp, then after Aidan was born, in my thigh, because
of my c-section dr. wanted me to inject below that point.  Funny thing is,
they all were very worried that I might bleed afterwards, but I never really
did... they said oh, you still need to hold that cotton on there, and I said
nawww, see I'm fine, it's already stopped. lol....

I had to tell my dvt story to every single nurse, and they found me by far
the most interesting patient.  They sent the intern nurse who was actually
the best nurse I had the entire time, because I had sooo many complications,
and health factors.  Clotting,c-section, hypothyroid, etc....  I sort of
felt like a science project, but she was soo nice about it, and thanked me
many times for letting her take care of me my last day there.

Aimee
Breastfeeding Advocate, and lucky to be a SAHM to Amber-Ravelle born
9/18/98, and Aidan Hunter born 4/28/02
So proud of my breastfed babies!

Pictures of my babies -
http://hometown.aol.com/auburnmist1/myhomepage/index.html
Aidan Hunter's very own webpage -
http://www.babiesonline.com/babies/a/aidanhunter
Aimee Hood Photography - http://www.aimeehoodphotography.com


author: Jenrose

text:
"Tess" <[email]> wrote in message
news:ZtMX8.21761$[email]...

FVL???
Jen


subject: Re: hospital security (WAS Re: VENT:  My formerly perfect DH)

text:
"Sara" <[email]> wrote :
down ward,
had access.
us to move
curious,
the

I don't know if it's overkill to reassure the parents, but the
hospital I delivered at also uses the bracelet system. My SO was
given a number-coded bracelet that gave him free roam of the area,
and Michael and I had identical numbered bracelets which were
checked often. Very often, in fact. Every now and then, one of the
nurses who was coming on shift would do random comparisons of the
baby-mom teams on the floor.
  Also, visitors were required to sign in, and adults were required
to show ID before being allowed through the locked doors leading to
the maternity section. It felt a bit like being imprisoned, but it
would've been *very* hard for someone to swipe Michael.


author: Penny Gaines

text:
Sara wrote:

In the UK, there have been at least two baby-snatchings from hospitals
since my oldest was born, 8 years ago.


text:
--
"Sara" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
ward,
access.
move

Please don't think I am trying to scare you here, that is not my intent, but
every system has it's fault and there can be a breach.  A criminal always
seems to find a way when intent is there.  I think the system is in place to
make the parents feel secure *because* there is always a chance of a real
threat.  It doesn't happen all the time, but you've seen the news, there
have been cases of this happening, but it's rare.

Just make sure you know where your baby is at all times, have your husband
go with the baby.  Request procedures be done in your room when possible.
Don't be afraid to ask questions!  What are you doing to my baby and why,
before you even touch him!  Don't worry about what they think of you.  It's
your baby, and his well-being and safety is as much your concern as it is
the hospital's.

Aimee


author: Kavvy

text:
Sara wrote in message ...
ward,
access.

Our ward is not locked down but we all had matching bracelets and anyone
carrying a baby in the halls was in trouble ;-)  When outside the room the
baby had to be in the bassinet.  Of course, no one could get into the
nursery with out a matching bracelet and no one could leave the ward with a
baby without a nurse with them and a matching bracelet.  I was instructed to
wheel the bassinet into the bathroom with me for showers our just to use the
restroom.  Honestly, I think all that has as much, if not more, to do with
making sure the staff give the right baby to the right parents then it does
with someone stealing the baby.  Those are just my thoughts, not anything I
read.  As a personal story, my aunt was given the wrong baby.  She knew
because they brought her a girl and she had a boy, the only boy in the
hospital at the time.  That was over 30 years ago.  I looked at mine so hard
just to make sure I got the right one back!

Nikki
Mama to Hunter (3) and Luke (1)


author: Jolene

subject: Re: VENT:  My formerly perfect DH

text:
"Kandace Wright" <me@kandace_nospamme_wright.com> wrote in message news:<CdtW8.456529$cQ3.36796@sccrnsc01>...

Perhaps with a little more life experience, you'll hear even worse.
And with a little more education, you'll know even more.  Try doing a
little reading on homones and how they effect the body and mind in
times of stress.  They have a lot to do with how intense your feelings
are when they are flooding your body, especially during pregnancy.
But, I don't have to tell you that; being that you're so smart and
all.

I really don't feel like getting into one of these side-line flame
wars where two people are picking each other apart over a third one's
marriage like two dogs tugging at the same bone.  Suffice to say that
my comments weren't directed at you, so I really don't care whether or
not you agree with them.  But, perhaps you should have read the entire
post instead of picking out little pieces to pick apart and use as an
excuse to throw your own tantrums.  You might learn *something*.  But
then again, maybe not; being that you're so smart and all.

Oops, was that sexist?  Age-ist?  Whatever.  Grow up.


subject: Re: My formerly perfect DH

text:
--
"P. Tierney" <[email]> wrote in message
news:TNkW8.439196$352.62957@sccrnsc02...
would
you've

But, if it was *their* baby, then he should have come to her first before
telling the nurses it's okay to give a bottle, I know my husband would have.

Aimee


subject: Re: My formerly perfect DH

text:
"P. Tierney" <[email]> wrote in message
news:TNkW8.439196$352.62957@sccrnsc02...
would
you've

One, possibly 2 posters have directly mentioned this.  From what I've seen,
it's been ignored, for the most part.

~Nan~


author: Circe

subject: Re: VENT:  My formerly perfect DH

text:
Sorry, I'm going to chop this up and respond in reverse order to the
way it was written!

"Charlotte M." <[email]> wrote in message
news:hklW8.29181$[email]
I think what Joshua is saying (and I agree with him) is that the fact
that Craig was brought to Victoria for feeding only once the first
night and twice the second does not necessarily mean he must have
been given supplemental bottles during those nights. While my first
baby ate about every 2-3 hours for the first few nights (and there-
after!), my second and third were both pretty sleepy the first few
nights and only ate perhaps once or twice. This doesn't at all address
the issue of Victoria's husband undercutting her with the nursing staff
by advising them to give bottles if they thought it appropriate, but
the simple fact that the baby ate rarely during those first couple of
nights doesn't necessarily mean that the nursing staff *did* give the
baby a bottle.

I *totally* agree. And I understand why she is angry and why she is
worried that the same thing could happen again.

What I couldn't help wondering when I read the initial post, though,
was why the baby was in the nursery at night in the first place?
There is a fairly simple way to ensure that nursing staff don't give
your baby a bottle in the middle of the night and that is to have
the baby in your room at all times. At least that way, when the baby
wakes up in the night and wants to eat, you can beat the nursing
staff to the punch.

Given that I thought rooming-in was pretty much the norm with newborns
these days, I was rather surprised to know that Craig had been kept
in the nursery. Certainly, I would *insist* on rooming-in with Gizmo
if I were in Victoria's shoes. An ounce of prevention...

I *wish* I had some advice on dealing with the damage to the marital
relationship. I don't. When trust is broken like this, it takes a long
time to fix.


author: Barbara Foster Williams

subject: Re: VENT:  My formerly perfect DH

text:
In article <hklW8.29181$[email]>,
 "Charlotte M." <[email]> wrote:

I just had to copy this so that I could say this is *exactly* how I
feel.  I would further add that perhaps, to the people who have been
saying "get over it, it isn't a big deal," bfing is *not* as important
as it obviously is to Victoria.  The point is, though, that *Victoria*
feels strongly about it.  She also feels that bottles given to Craig in
the hospital caused nipple confusion which ultimately led to his
weaning.  Whether that's true or not, that's the way she *feels* things
happened, and it's why she feels so strongly on this issue.

I can totally understand her being upset, because I would be extremely
upset in her shoes.  As a matter of fact, my husband *did* give
permission for Jamie to have formula (and fed it to him) right after he
was born, because his blood sugar was low and I was unconscious.  I was
upset when I found that out, but I would have been *much* more upset if
he'd not told me about it for a whole *year*, for pete's sake.


subject: Re: VENT:  My formerly perfect DH

text:
"Charlotte M." <[email]> wrote:
feels,
the

    I've seen less of that and more that it should be discussed,
especially if another child is coming.  Even if not, parenting is
(usually) a two-person job and each party can use this to realize
that, perhaps figure out what other areas they might differ in,
and figure out how to deal with such things in the future. *Then*
move on.

                                                                P. Tierney


subject: Re: VENT:  My formerly perfect DH

text:
--
"Charlotte M." <[email]> wrote in message
news:hklW8.29181$[email]...
<snip>
feels,
the

I agree Charlotte.  I know how hugely important bf is to me, and if my
relationship was jeopardized because of inconsiderate staff, and an
unthinking dh, It would take me a *long* time to get over it.  I have been
through hell with both of my pregnancies, and bf was not easy to say the
least for me.  I understand exactly what she is going through.  Perhaps she
is still hurt and hasn't gotten over the pain, and her hubby is there for
her to be mad at, not the stupid hospital staff.  They certainly deserve a
huge part of the blame here too.
supplement
to

Yes.  She needs to make *darn* sure this doesn't happen again, and if that
makes her the capitol "B" in the hospital, then so be it.  It's her decision
and it's her right to bf her child, it's not anyone elses right to feed her
child formula, *bottom line*.

Aimee
Breastfeeding Advocate, and lucky to be a SAHM to Amber-Ravelle born
9/18/98, and Aidan Hunter born 4/28/02
So proud of my breastfed babies!

Pictures of my babies -
http://hometown.aol.com/auburnmist1/myhomepage/index.html
Aidan Hunter's very own webpage -
http://www.babiesonline.com/babies/a/aidanhunter
Aimee Hood Photography - http://www.aimeehoodphotography.com


author: Kara Habel

subject: Re: LONG (was Re: VENT:  My formerly perfect DH)

text:
Victoria,
    Regardless of what others are thinking and saying about this topic, I
believe that all of your points are justified. I'd have to admit that I
would be feeling the EXACT SAME WAY and saying the EXACT SAME THINGS as you
are.
    I wish you the best of luck in the future with BF'ing and working out
this little issue.  I know you will do great with Gizmo and I'm sure this
will all be worked out shortly.
    I'm so sorry that you have to go through this right now, but please
don't let it keep you from doing all the right things for Gizmo. Good luck!!
-K

p.s. I know you live SOMEWHAT near me (I'm in Cincinnati, Hyde Park to be
exact :) ) and, if you don't mind me asking, I was just curious as to what
hospital you used with Craig and which one you will be using with Gizmo.