Turtleneck Appreciation Week

A little story

Once upon a time, there was a lovely thing called the turtleneck sweater. It was soft and stretchy, and kept people's necks warm when the weather got cool. It could roll down to cover just part of the neck in the warmer cool weather, and it could unroll for the really cold times. Everyone appreciated turtlenecks,  everyone had them, and everyone was happy.

One day, a Designer got it into his head that turtlenecks looked funny. He cut the turtlenecks off all the sweaters he could find, leaving wide collars and open necks. At first people didn't like it; their necks got cold, they had to use scarves and other extra things to stay warm enough. Where once just the simple turtleneck had been enough, now they needed accessories.

Of course this was good business for the Designers, and so one after another jumped on board with the new look. Low-cut necks! Scarves! Necklaces! What's not to love! Over time, people became so accustomed to the low-cut look that it became considered 'normal.' The rare person who did wear a turtleneck was considered old-fashioned or backward.

But some people remembered what turtlenecks were like. They remembered how soft and comfortable and warm and simple and practical they were. They went on wearing them, and tried to help others realize that the Designers were following whim and income, rather than practicality or common sense. Some people believed them, and even though the vast majority of the population had given up turtlenecks for over a century, slowly they started trying them again. Once someone tried turtlenecks, they almost always became an advocate for them, and so slowly the turtleneck-wearing population increased to nearly half.

The Designers were distraught. How could they make money on accessories if everyone went back to turtlenecks? So they devised a plan. Soon, the prestigious American Academy of Apparel authoritatively declared that turtlenecks were a relic of the past, and that all educated, forward-thinking people should avoid them at all costs.

This is why this week, turtleneck-lovers are uniting to call the American Academy of Apparel on their greedy and unethical behavior.  

Today, the American Academy of Pediatrics released a statement supporting the routine circumcision of infant males. This flies in the face of ALL competent medical research in the area. No other medical organization in any country recommends routine circumcision. The AAP is motivated by their pocketbooks, not their ethics. (Frankly, the fact that they would make such a statement leaves me with the conclusion that I dare not trust their advice in any area.)

Dr. Bob Block, the current president of the AAP, proudly proclaims “AAP ROCKS” on his open hands in his profile picture on Twitter. In response,  human rights advocates everywhere are protesting him and the AAP by writing our thoughts on our hands and sharing them across the internet (as well writing numerous letters and emails of course). We are "washing our hands of the AAP," and showing the world exactly what we think of the American Academy of Pediatrics and their infant circumcision policy.

DO Go Gentle into That Good Night

This morning I read an article in the Wall Street Journal called Why Doctors Die Differently by Ken Murray, MD. It talked about several individuals who, following a diagnosis of cancer or other terminal illness, opted out of expensive 'lifesaving' (or life-prolonging) treatments, opting instead to maybe take some pain medications, and otherwise to just live life to the fullest for whatever little time they had left. And then to die, peacefully, at home.
Doctors!
Over half of doctors have "DNR" (do not resuscitate) in their advanced directives or living will (what they want done if they are still alive but unable to express their wishes). As the article explains

It's not something that we like to talk about, but doctors die, too. What's unusual about them is not how much treatment they get compared with most Americans, but how little. They know exactly what is going to happen, they know the choices, and they generally have access to any sort of medical care that they could want. But they tend to go serenely and gently.

Doctors don't want to die any more than anyone else does. But they usually have talked about the limits of modern medicine with their families. They want to make sure that, when the time comes, no heroic measures are taken.

The author speculates that maybe this is because doctors know the real rates of effectiveness of those heroic measures. In movies and other media, for example, CPR is portrayed as "successful in 75% of the cases [and] 67% of the TV patients went home. In reality, a 2010 study of more than 95,000 cases of CPR found that only 8% of patients survived for more than one month. Of these, only about 3% could lead a mostly normal life."

A follow-up article in The Guardian (a UK publication) cites British doctors' responses to Dr Murray's article. Although one doctor said he thought that he felt differently about the US medical system as opposed to the UK medical system, the general consensus there was the same.

Kate Adams, a GP in Hackney, London, thinks general practitioners "lose" their patients when they enter hospital and take end-of-life treatment decisions with consultants. "For me, quality of life is much more important than quantity. Sometimes patients and distressed relatives focus on quantity," she says. "I wouldn't necessarily go for chemotherapy and drugs that make you feel sick if it's only going to prolong my life for a short time."

"It's a topic that isn't talked about very often, and should be," agrees Dr Clodagh Murphy, another GP, who practises in Northern Ireland. "Most people think there's nothing worse than death – but we know that there is. That's why it's so difficult when you see an elderly patient with cancer; their natural instinct is to go for treatment, and you must respect that – but at the same time, you're thinking, 'So now you're going to have an operation with a six-month recovery period, which might make the last three years of your life even more hellish than if you'd let the illness take its course.'"

It's certainly food for thought, isn't it.  As Dr Murray concludes, "my doctor has my choices on record. They were easy to make, as they are for most physicians. There will be no heroics, and I will go gentle into that good night. Like my mentor Charlie. Like my cousin Torch. Like so many of my fellow doctors."

*Shift*

In the middle of December I broke down. I had a total emotional and mental crash. Depression is not new for me, but it's something I sometimes forget for months or years at a time.  I don't suffer from it in the postpartum period, interestingly enough, but I do experience strong depression during my pregnancies (in spite of my excitement), and it seems that as soon as my menses return post-baby, the depression hits hard again. I wrote about my crash post-Bear, and this fall I should have anticipated another crash as my post-Eagle fertility returned. But I was busy and stressed and didn't think about it.
So, I've crashed. This is why I only wrote for the first two weeks of advent. This is why I have only written three posts in the last month. I enlisted family and friends to advise and support me, and intend to enlist a professional or two as well. In the meantime, I have made several significant adjustments in my life.
The combination of grad school with full time babysitting was wiping me out. I had never really planned to do both, it was an either/or plan...but I signed up for grad school and then the babysitting became availableSo am taking a quarter off of school. When that was not enough, I made arrangements to babysit part time rather than full time, so a couple of days a week I have a break from that. The money was hard to let go of, but I know this is more important.
On a physical front, I have weaned Eagle. That was emotionally draining for a few days but he has adjusted and I know my body appreciates that it is no longer supporting an extra person. I'm taking huge doses of vitamin D and have begun a regimen with iodine (and associated supplements) as well. We'll see how that goes. I don't feel a huge difference there yet, but then again, I'm not crashing the way I was, so maybe that's enough. I believe my depression is hormonally-linked, so I want to go in and have some bloodwork done and see if there is anything to be learned from that. I am also looking into counseling, simply because I believe that the discussion form of support will probably be helpful for me.
I do love grad school, and may return to it for spring quarter (with the lightened babysitting load and my improved physical condition I think it will be more workable). I have not decided for sure, but am considering it.

On a separate but related note, three days before Christmas break started, we decided to pull Wolf (age 11) out of 6th grade and homeschool him.
Two and a half weeks later, we jumped in with both feet.
He had been struggling with school here, both the teaching style of instructors and also the way that certain topics were taught (very book-based) and the homework load. His feelings about learning and schoolwork were becoming very negative, and getting him to do his homework was a battle almost every day. Negativity was flowing out into our home and family through it all, and we knew something had to change. So now it has.
Due to my own struggles and stresses, I felt some trepidation over bringing him home, thinking that it might add stress to our home life...but it did not. Part of me had wondered, even suspected, that bringing him home might lower the stress levels, and indeed it has. Sure, some days there are frustrations, but overall he is happier and more at ease, and so are we all. He feels that he is learning more, he is not being tied down to busywork on things he already knows, he is able to help me with all the little ones, and he feels positive about school in general.
And I must go. We're watching a movie about mummification. Did you know they stuffed peppercorns in Ramses' nose to make sure it kept his shape after he was dehydrated? and they would put little onions in the eye sockets to keep them rounded instead of sunken in (because eyes are mostly water...)

Delayed/Selective Vaccination and Mormon Missions

After the school question, this is usually the next one (at least from LDS parents):

So I'm homeschooling, or filing an exemption for my child to attend public school...but what about going on a mission? The church wants missionaries to have a bunch of vaccinations too...

Again there are a couple of options.

Firstly, there are some people who truly cannot be vaccinated. If they have certain allergies (dairy or eggs for example) then they are healthy enough to serve a mission, but cannot receive vaccinations because there is dairy and/or egg in most vaccines. For these individuals, they can still serve missions, but will most likely stay in the USA for their mission. A non-allergic individual who has simply opted-out of vaccinations would have this same option--to just stay 'stateside.' Many people are entirely comfortable with this.

If you are comfortable with vaccination, and simply didn't want to inject too much into a small child, then you have the option to get the vaccines at an older age. This is the route I intend to go with my children. I think that getting a whole bunch of shots in the last 6 months before a mission is equally inappropriate to getting a whole bunch of shots at once with an infant, so I would again spread it across a few years. When each child is in their mid-teens, I will discuss with them about missions and vaccines and inquire as to how they want to proceed. If they are comfortable with being limited in where they might go, I'm ok with that. If they want to keep the foreign/third world country door open, then we would set up a schedule to get the remaining 'required' vaccinations over the high school years. (And another reminder--keep your own records of all the vaccines your kids get and when they get them!)

Delayed/Selective Vaccination and Public School Attendance

Recently I got this comment on my Hep B post:

We avoided this one with our newborn, and I want to continue to avoid it. But if it's required for school entrance, at what point should we have it done so we won't have issues with the school nurse in five years? 

(image source)

Well, there are two answers to that question, and it depends on what your longer-term vaccination plans are. Are you a delayed vaccinator? Or are you a selective vaccinator?

If you are simply a delayed vaccinator, and plan to get all the shots but on a delayed schedule, then you simply spread the vaccines across 5 years rather than doing them all in 2 years (which is what the recommended schedule says). You have twice as long, so you can spread them out easily. Utilize a public health clinic to get the 'off-schedule' shots, or you can do what I do and take multiple children every time one of them has a doctor's appointment, and get shots for everybody even if it's not "their" appointment. (My doctor has been great about this.)
In this case, of course, by the time the child is school-aged, they have had all the 'required' shots for school, and there are no hassles.

Please note--keep your own records of your kids' vaccinations.  Many medical offices will give you a little card to track them, and that works fine, but if you don't have a card then make some kind of chart. You should have your own records and not just rely on what the doctor has in their office. For one thing, the 'recommended schedule' has more injections than what is actually required by the state or school (for example, for polio the CDC says that a child needs 3 injections, with the final one being after age 4. However the typical state schedule says to do 3 injections plus an additional one after age 4. I choose to spare my kids that extra shot!) You need to have your own records so that you can determine which shots to get for your child and when to get them. If you leave it up to your doctor, they will likely try to pressure you into getting "caught up" and/or getting more shots than you truly need.
So I'll repeat myself: keep your own records, make your own choices about what to get and when to get it. Take responsibility for your child(ren)'s health, don't leave it up to someone else. ☺

In the United States, if you are a selective vaccinator or a non-vaccinator, then you will have a different issue if you want your children to attend public school. It depends a little on how selective you are. The list of "recommended" vaccinations is far longer than the list of "required for school" vaccinations. If you get the required ones then you'll still be fine. But, if you opt out of some of those (such as the Hep B), then you will need to do a little extra paperwork in order to keep out of fights with the school nurse.
That extra paperwork comes in the form of claiming an exemption and putting it on file with the school.
The exemption filing process varies from state to state, however you can look it up online. You can also ask at your doctor's office or your local public health office, but they may not be very friendly about it...I recommend starting online (and the Mothering.com forums are a great place to start, I would go to "find your tribe" and find your region and then ask there for pointers about what to do for your area).
In some places you can just do it once, I believe in other places you may need to re-file for each school year. There should not be a fee associated with it, but I think I heard that in some places there is. I've never had to pay one so I'm not sure.
And how does an exemption work? Simple, you put it on file with your school, and your kids attend. IF (and only if) there is an outbreak of something your child hasn't been vaccinated for (measles, pertussis, etc), then you will be asked to keep your child home from school for the duration of the outbreak. That's all.

There are three types of exemptions: medical, religious, and personal/philosophical, but not all are available in all states. Every state has to allow medical exemptions for children who have certain allergies or who are immuno-compromised. A medical exemption has to be signed by your doctor, stating why the child is exempted. I believe that all states also have to allow the religious exemption, because otherwise it would be discrimination. This is just a matter of printing off the form and signing it and turning in a copy to the school. The personal or philosophical exemption is only available in some states, but essentially it says "we don't believe in or don't want vaccinations [for whatever reason, we don't have to tell anybody why]" and, like the religious exemption, you just fill out the form, sign it, and turn it in to the school. In some states you may need to have it notarized.
For those who are choosing selective vaccination (or non-vaccination) for personal reasons rather than medical, this can become sticky if you are in a state which only allows medical or religious exemptions. I, personally, still feel comfortable with claiming a religious exemption. My religion is not opposed to vaccination, but it does teach that we should "search, ponder, and pray" when making decisions. My research, thought, and prayer over my family's health has led me to the decision to vaccinate selectively. I suppose not everyone would feel comfortable with that reasoning, but I do.

So that's how we work it out with delayed/selective vaccination and public school attendance. Of course, a lot of folks who opt out of mainstream vaccination practices also opt out of mainstream educational practices, and homeschooling doesn't have any vaccination requirements either way. ☺

Finding the Sacred in S-E-X (or, how I conquered Good Girl Syndrome and learned to be a Lover)

Today's post is very personal, and I debated with myself for a while before deciding to write about it. I finally concluded that I wished that someone had shared these things with me years ago, rather than having to slowly find them on my own. So I write today with the hope that, perhaps, someone out there will benefit from what I share.
 ~j

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I was raised as a religious youth to be good and chaste, and subsequently I ended up suffering from the all too common "Good Girl Syndrome." In other words, once I'd saved myself for my wedding night, I made the transition physically, but not mentally or emotionally. I adapted to all the other aspects of marriage quite well, but I did (and still do) turn red if my sexuality comes up in a conversation (for example, telling someone that I'm pregnant). It wasn't that I never enjoyed myself, but I had been fed so many cultural messages about sex being dirty, just physical, animalistic, and anything but spiritual, so it was hard to look at it as good, let alone holy. I still wanted to be a righteous person, and I wasn't finding much (especially from religious sources) that ever talked about sex in a positive light. So even though I knew that it was ok to have sex when you're married, there was still a part of myself that was always uncomfortable with the fact that I was sexually active. I even recall shortly after my wedding having the thought "well, there's no going back [to virginity] now, it's too late."

Now physical pleasure is a valid aspect of sex (and needn't be considered 'dirty,' I think, unless it is the only reason for the sexual relationship...which of course would not be the case in a marriage). Procreation is an important part of sex too (but, again, not the only reason for the relationship!) With that said, (at least for me) finding the spiritual side of sexual intimacy was what finally helped me move out of the 'virginal youth' mindset and into being able to be a 'lover' wife. I deeply wish that I had figured out both my problem and the solution years ago when we were first married, but it's better late than never I suppose. I finally tuned in to myself as a sexually active person, and it's remarkable how much better my life (all aspects of it) have become.

So how did I recover from my Good Girl Syndrome and find the spiritual side of sex? There were several parts, but first I should note that my husband has been supportive of me throughout this process, and that it was not his fault in the first place. He always wanted me to be able to love the physical side of marriage as he did, and tried to help me in whatever ways he could think of. But there were things going on inside me that couldn't just be loved away, and it took a while to find and fix them.

1. I had to realize what was wrong with me in the first place. It wasn't just that I was tired, or hormonal, or had low libido because of the nursing baby...it was that in some deep-seated part of my unconscious I wasn't comfortable with my own sexuality. I faced that and called it by name, and naming your demon is the first step to killing him.
2. I read The Soul of Sex and it was very helpful for me in appreciating sexuality as much larger than just the physical act. The author explored classical archetypes and discussed sexuality from a philosophical perspective that was very helpful to me. (If you didn't read my book review, click the link there and go read it. Please! That book was literally life-changing for me.)
3. I got in touch with my pagan side. A number of pagan religions (notably wicca) teach that the sexual act is the ultimate thing in the universe, the Great Rite between Goddess and God. It joins opposites into a whole that is greater than the parts, and finds resolution in the dichotomies of existence. Considering the common pagan belief that we all have aspects of gods/goddesses within us, or all have the potential to become gods/goddesses, then when we enact the Great Rite we are creating a microcosm of that holy (and vital) resolution. 

Since beginning to see both sexuality and sexual intercourse in this new (better) light, I have sought ways to keep sacredness in my sexuality. Here are a few:

• Think about things like what I mentioned above (both in and out of the bedroom): the unified whole being greater than the parts, the physical unification being a symbol for spiritual and other unity in your marriage, etc. Discuss these ideas with your spouse.
• Lighting candles. We have a few fancy ones from this etsy shop, but mostly we have cheap tealights and they work just as well. The ambiance of candlelight is not only romantic, but many

  

  photo by Alice Harold

  religious ceremonies utilize candles, and the light/fire of a candle has many spiritual connotations.
• Try a bath (you can add candles there too!) Ritual washings are part of many religions, so try washing each other before proceeding to other activities.
• Massage one another with oil (or lotion). Anointing with oils and formalized touching are found in many spiritual practices. Take the opportunity to use repetitive motions and physical touch to arouse and relax your spirits as well as your bodies.
• Anything which shuts out the world can be a way to tune into the spiritual. So, in intimate times, shut out the world, and tune into your own spirit, your spouse's spirit, and the Spirit that is over your marriage.
• If consummation is the 'magic moment' (afterwhich you are 'married' and would have to seek a 'divorce' rather than an 'annulment'), then every time you re-consummate your marriage it could be considered a way of renewing your vows. Think about that!

The Gluten Experiment: Part 4

Part 1--going gluten free
Part 2--eating 'normally' after the GF test
Part 3--low (glutenous) carb, focus on whole grains

Part 4--adding enzymes and/or soaking flours
(If you missed my note on this last time, soaking flours helps the grain begin to break down, so that it's easier for the belly to deal with. Digestive enzymes do the same thing only on the inside rather than the outside!)

The first thing I did was switch back to my soaked whole wheat bread recipe. It takes longer to make (it has to soak overnight) and the simple truth is that I got out of the habit of making it because I just always forgot to start it at night and so then when morning came I needed to make bread so I'd do the standard non-soaked recipe. Both are excellent breads, but right now I'm feeling a sense that soaking will help me.
When the first batch of soaked bread came out of the oven I purposely had several pieces (hot with butter mmmmm!) to see if I noticed anything as the result of the carb/wheat binge. I did not. This is an indication to me (again) that I do not need to stick to a strictly gluten-free diet.

I am slowly working on incorporating other soaked recipes into my diet. I made pancakes one day last week and that was easy. I'm working on adapting some other recipes--such as my roll recipe--so that they can be soaked as well. I think the soaking will especially make a difference for my occasional white flour recipes.
In conjunction with soaking more, I am taking an enzyme pill which will hopefully help deal with the unsoaked foods in my life. I don't want to have to swear off everything made by anyone else, and I really don't think I need to. I just need to make sure I take my supplements and eat well at home, and my body will probably tolerate occasional exceptions to policy without completely revolting.

I do also think that candida is a very valid issue for me. Candida is essentially a systemic yeast overgrowth, and it feeds on sugars and yeast. So if I get a flare up of it, then I get crazy intense cravings for sweets and/or yeast breads. It is really hard to knock them off, but once I do it for about 24 hours it starts getting easier, and usually within about 3 days I'm feeling quite normal again. I'm hoping that my new (or renewed) efforts to consume only minimal amounts of white flour/sugar and yeast will help me avoid those flares.


At least at this point, after a month and a half of experimentation on myself, I have reached a few conclusions about how I should eat:

1. Eat whole grains, soaking them when possible, especially if it's one that has gluten in it
2. Avoid white/yeasty breads in general. If I do consume them (ie, at a holiday gathering) then be sure to take my enzyme supplements.
3. Avoid purchased breads/floury things because they are the devil: unsoaked and full of other garbage
4. Regardless of the type of carb, aim for less rather than more. Fill in with more of other parts of plants (leaves, roots, etc instead of seeds).
   

The Gluten Experiment: Part 3

Part 1--going gluten free
Part 2--eating 'normally' after the GF test

Part 3--low (glutenous) carb with a whole grain focus
So far so good. I made a batch of homemade rolls (one of my favorite things) and snacked on them quite a bit one day, and found that I felt quite unfilled and also had that lethergy and malaise, and that was what made me realize that a problem with candida (yeast/sugar) may be a more likely culprit for me than a problem with gluten.
As I work on cutting back it gets easier. The first couple of days that I avoided white flour I was craving sugar like crazy--we didn't have any cookies or anything in the house, but I realized after the fact that I went through most of a jug of fruit juice in one day. Whoops!! As I stick to it though, I am finding that I don't crave those white breads/rolls as much as I used to. I make whole wheat bread and I seem to do fine with a little of that. I didn't notice any ill effects after having a meal with pasta in it. But I'm trying to take it very easy on white/processed flours.

There is one last step, which I am slowly starting into, and that involves soaking my grains and/or taking digestive enzymes. Soaking flours helps the grain begin to break down, so that it's easier for the belly to deal with. Digestive enzymes do the same thing only on the inside rather than the outside!

The Gluten Experiment: Part 2

So, part 1 was going gluten-free. I basically hated that. I will readily admit that it would take a LOT of awfulness in a non-GF life to get me to stick to being GF.

Part 2 was to return to normal eating.
That's actually not quite accurate, because I returned to genuinely normal eating for about a week, but then spent 10 days traveling, and that included some fast food and lots of meals prepared by other people so not only was it not GF, it wasn't even really 'normal' for me. But I digress. Lots of people told me that they didn't notice much when they went off gluten, but they did notice negative changes when they went back on it. Thus part 2.

On my first day eating gluten again I noticed mostly just excitement and not having to stop and read every label (or look it up on www.zeer.com). I'm not sure that I ate terribly 'normally' that day because I was just sortof excited about eating whatever struck my fancy. I didn't notice anything in particular physically.
On the second day I had a handful of pretzels and noticed afterward that I felt bloated. I tried to pretend that I didn't.
On the fifth day we made BLTs (which I love) with store-bought bread (which I don't love, but we had a loaf in the house because Hubby had gotten it for making french toast and we were trying to finish things off before leaving on our trip). Again I got the bloaty feeling afterward, and I had only eaten the one sandwich.
I did not notice bloating at any other times. I didn't notice any real changes to my intestinal regularity (except that the backed-upedness lasted a few more days...but it had started during part 1, so I didn't think that counted as a 'new symptom).

Within a week of eating whatever I wanted, I did notice that if I had a carb-heavy meal (especially one that was white-flour centric), I felt somewhat lethargic and unwell. Not sick really, just sub-par. So I didn't even give it a full two weeks of eating whatever I wanted. I launched straight into part 3, which was to not sweat it about which carbs I had per se, but to aim for fewer rather than more of them (and to try to stick to whole grains--that was hard until I got home but is fairly easy now).

(stay tuned, part 3 is coming tomorrow!)

Being Aware; It's Not All Pink

I was a guest author over at LDS WAVE today.

October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. This is a fact widely acknowledged in the media and everybody seems to get on board with everything from all-night cancer walks to facebook status games. My grandmother is one of those “1 in 8 women” who has been diagnosed with breast cancer, as are dear family friends, and I have joined those all-night walks and regularly remind my blog-readers to do their self breast exams.

However, October after October, I notice that the flood of awareness is decidedly (and almost exclusively) pink. It seems that we either overlook or are unaware of the many other “Awareness Months” going on in October.

Yes, 1 in 8 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in their lifetime. However 1 in 4 women will experience a miscarriage or infant loss, and 1 in 3 will be a victim of domestic violence...

click here to read the rest

NOT just "like a heavy period"

I have heard lots of people say that "a miscarriage is basically just like a heavy period."

That is simply not true. Don't say it. Don't think it. Don't be fooled by it.

A miscarriage that occurs in the first few weeks of pregnancy may have the physical characteristics of a menstrual period: several days of cramping and bleeding. It might even seem like a 'normal' period to some women. A woman who didn't know that she was pregnant might even mistake a miscarriage for a period. All the same, if the woman knew she was pregnant, then even these early and physically easy miscarriages may carry an emotional toll that a regular menstrual period does not.
Some mothers really do have a miscarriage that is just like a period. For whatever reason, they do not grieve, or do not grieve very much. If you are one of those mothers you should not feel guilty about it, nor feel that your miscarriage was any less than someone elses. However this experience seems to happen in the minority of cases.
I miscarried this baby at 5 weeks gestation, and physically the process was like a textbook menstrual period. It was not the same as my normal periods which was one of the reasons I knew it was a miscarriage, but to another woman it could have been completely normal. However, if you read what I wrote at the time, it is obvious that my emotional state was not "just like a period" at all. I was grieving.

Somewhere between 6-10 weeks another change occurs. It varies from woman to woman and even from pregnancy to pregnancy, but somewhere in there the baby gets large enough that the physical process of miscarriage stops being like a period, and starts being more like labor. The uterus must contract and the cervix must open in order to expel the baby and placenta and other "products of conception."
When I experienced my first miscarriage I was 14 1/2 weeks along. I labored on and off for almost a full day, but had no idea what was going on. I thought I had intestinal gas, but hindsight tells me that it was actually labor contractions. I knew that a full-term stillborn baby would require labor and delivery, but I had never guessed that a baby only 4 inches long might also require labor.
It is my understanding (and my experience) that the labor of miscarriage is often shorter than a full-term labor would be, because a smaller baby can be delivered with less cervical dilation and pushing. Some women feel that it is something like the "first half" of labor. Others feel that it is very comparable to laboring with a full-term child.

This is one of those big unspoken secrets: many miscarriages are not like a heavy period, they are the labor and birthing of a baby.

The Gluten Experiment: Part 1

A couple of months ago I shared that I'd had a blood test reveal the presence of gliadin, which is the antibody to gluten. In other words, I tested positive for gluten intolerance. The standard procedure for that is to begin a gluten free "GF" diet.

I did not jump in immediately, partly because making the switch requires some effort, but mostly because I didn't have symptoms. (We had no reason to suspect an intolerance, the test was part of a standard battery we were doing because of something else, and the result was something of a surprise.) Many people experience bloating, gas, or irregularity. Many experience fatigue or joint pain. Some sources do suggest symptoms as differentiated as headaches, giddiness, loss or gain of weight, skin inflammation, nervousness, anger, impotency, irregular menstrual cycles, and miscarriage. That last one of course stood out to me, but it's one I did not find on most of the symptom lists, and I'm definitely a bit skeptical as to how a food allergy would be implicated in miscarriage.
My reading indicated that when dealing with a food allergy, an 'elimination diet' (ie, eliminating the offending food) is typically done for two weeks to observe whether or not there are any changes in symptoms. I spoke with several friends who have allergies to either wheat or gluten, and while a couple said that they needed to be GF for 3 or 6 weeks to see results, many also said that they noticed changes within just a few days. So two weeks seemed like a reasonable test to me. Also, several people told me that they did not notice anything particular when they went off gluten, but they did notice a change for the worse when they went back on it. So my experiment is really twofold: observing myself for two weeks off of gluten, and then continuuing to observe for the next two weeks as I go back on it.

Today's report is about my two weeks gluten-free. (Just so you know, there's a bit of "TMI" in here...so consider yourself warned!)

The first couple of days were really hard, as I had known they would be. I was overwhelmed with constantly checking labels or looking things up ( www.zeer.com is a great site for checking whether things have gluten in them). It seemed that most of what I wanted to snack on had gluten in it... I felt hungry, not because I wasn't eating, but because I had to be so discriminating about what I ate. I think the difficulty was mostly emotional, but it was certainly difficult. The second day was especially hard.
I did get a mix to make GF pancakes, and one to make a loaf of GF bread, and I did make a flour mix which I substituted into a couple of other things, so in those few instances I had my separate food from everyone elses...but otherwise I simply prepared GF foods for everyone. We ate several dishes over rice--Indian, Chinese, Thai, and Mexican foods. We ate several meat & potatoes type meals. I ate a lot of eggs for breakfasts and fruit or cheese for snacks. It was a little annoying, but I did get the hang of it, and it wasn't too hard.
On two of the days when I was eating every (GF) meal, I found that I felt weak, woozy, and even a little nauseous. One of these was day 2, and I credited it to the change...but the other day was more than halfway through the trial, and it caught me quite off guard. I was eating meals with the same frequency and of the same size as always have, and that ill feeling is not something that happens except occasionally when I am pregnant or if I have fasted a full 24 hours. (I actually did a partial fast one day during the trial--I don't do full fasts when I'm breastfeeding--but, I felt fine during that time.)
I'd heard that my often-poor sleep might improve. This is hard to gauge as I had a teething baby during part of the time and he was not sleeping well so of course I was not sleeping well either...however, I didn't notice any particular differences in that regard either.
I also observed was that there were a couple of days when I was quite gassy. I was keeping a food diary, and there doesn't seem to have been anything in common between those days that might have caused it. Also in regard to the gastro-intestinal situation, I have never gotten so backed up in my life. These two issues I suspect may have to do with the lower fiber content of my diet when I went off wheat--we do consume quite a bit of wheat in our household, but it is almost all whole wheat. I probably should have thought about that ahead of time and sought additional alternate sources of fiber...however, I felt that the most realistic way to do the trial was to simply get rid of gluten, without making any other dietary changes.

So, my conclusions at this stage are that going gluten free did not improve my quality of life at all, and may have actually decreased it a bit.
I did develop a fairly awesome cookie recipe though: Stardrops.
We shall see if I notice anything in the coming two weeks as I go gluten-full again (I'll let you know of course!)


One friend, upon hearing that I was trying gluten-free, mentioned that in her experience gluten-free is not usually as helpful as staying on gluten and simply adding digestive enzymes to the diet. I need to research this option more fully, but hope to try it out as part 3 of the experiment.
If I do notice adverse results as I go onto gluten again, then I will also add on a gluten-lite trial, and see how that goes.

Five Things They Left Out of Health Class

There are a few things that seem to get left out of anatomy, health, or sex ed classes. Things that I learned much later, and wished I had known much earlier. So I'm just going to put them out there...

1) The Fertility Awareness Method (FAM) is not just for avoiding/achieving pregnancy. If you have irregular periods (or even regular ones) it can help you track exactly what is going on with your body from one day to the next, and help you predict--usually with very high accuracy--what day your next menstruation will begin. You don't have to be caught off guard. Ever.

2) A woman is only fertile a few days per cycle. It's also possible to track which days those are by using FAM. With that said, your body wants to get pregnant, even if you don't. It's wired for procreation. During the few days that you are fertile your body does multiple things to encourage pregnancy, including creating natural lubricants, opening the cervix, and having higher libido. So let me repeat, you are only fertile a few days per cycle, but typically your body is trying to beat the odds anyway.

3) Breastmilk doesn't come out of just one little hole--there are several tiny holes (5-10 in fact) on each breast. So if you go to shoot milk across the room (which often happens accidentally!) it may well look something like this ------>

4) Most girls are not symmetrical in their girlie parts. Since most of us don't look at anybody elses parts we don't know this, but yes it's normal. Most girls' breasts are not a 'matched pair' either.

5) At least one in four pregnancies ends in miscarriage. It is almost certain that you or someone you love will miscarry. Be educated. Be sympathetic. Don't pretend it isn't there.

First Friday Health Corner

First Friday of the month = breast self exam, so hop to it ladies!

(see, look, I was funny there, I made a bunny reference around easter time, did you notice?!)



Today I just wanted to take a couple of minutes to talk about autism.Today, April 2, has been declared "wear blue for autism awareness" day. I have no idea who declared it, but I'm wearing my blue because autism has recently entered my personal life in an unexpected way. A young person that we're close to seems to have many of the 'markers' and the family is starting the process of having a formal evaluation done. This young person is very bright and "high-functioning" but some things are just a little "off-kilter" so to speak.
Autism was always something that was out there but it was never part of my life. Well, now it may be part of my life, and I'm realizing that most of us probably know someone who has autism (to some degree), and we just may not recognize it.
As I've been reading up on aspergers and high-functioning autism in particular--trying to understand this young person better--I've realized that this is not a 'disability' so much as just an entirely different way of perceiving the world. We hear about how diagnosis rates are increasing, and I wonder if that is due to increasing pressure from our culture to 'fit in', rather than from an actual change in the incidence of autism. We live in a fast-paced and no-excuses kind of world, and for someone who needs time or space to be a little different, it is hard to just go with the flow. It's a good reminder to all of us to be patient with people--all people--and to accept that everybody is a little bit different, and that's ok. In fact, it's good to be a little different. Who would want to live in a world with a bunch of clones anyway.

The World According to Monsanto

We recently watched the documentary The World According to Monsanto (watch it here, read other reviews from TwilightEarth and Greenpeace). It was originally in French (it was dubbed) and for someone who doesn't read or speak French that is a little distracting because of some of the visual aspects (which I'll explain in a moment).

There is a lot of information in this film. It is packed full of primary source interviews--meaning interviews with people who were there, not just people who heard about it later. There is not a very smooth flow to the film though; it sortof jumps from one thing to the next. The overall message is clear: that Monsanto is and has been doing very shady things with our food production, from bovine growth hormones (rBGH) to roundup-ready seed to suing farmers out of everything they have. Most of the information was not new to me, as I had learned it from other sources (notably The Future of Food), but while FoF focuses on Monsanto's effects on the USA, this film spent more time on the international ramifications, including the way the company is making small independent farmers from Paraguay to India dependent on buying their seed and herbicides and is pushing monoculture (to the destruction of the traditional small family farms). It traced the infiltration of Monsanto's roundup-ready corn hybrid into Mexico's ancient corn strains, and showed photos of the truly disturbing results (if you know anything about how corn is supposed to look, these photos will give you chills).

The downside of this film is that it feels like an amateur movie. The numerous interviews and world traveling indicate a big budget, but the main transition method in the film is a woman (the filmmaker) sitting at her computer and googling various terms such as "monsanto rgbh falsify study" and so on. Yes, googling. In French. So that was a little distracting for me. The rest of the content was great, but the transitions (and there were many) were annoying.

In general, I do recommend the movie because of the content (which does go above and beyond other food documentaries I've seen). Just be warned that it doesn't have as polished a feel as some other documentaries.

Banking Cord Blood

I have to thank Miche over at Coordinated Chaos for sharing this post about cord blood banking. A lot of us have heard about cord blood banking, but what a lot of us may not realize is that there are two different types of banking: one is to bank it for your own family (for which you pay a pretty penny, usually around $2000 to start plus annual storage fees) and the other is to donate it to science. Cord blood contains embryonic stem cells and is therefore valuable for research even if you have no need or desire to store it for yourself. It also can be used in transfusions, and is somewhat comparable to bone marrow in that way--except that it's not painful to extract the way bone marrow is. And, of course, donation is free.
When I was expecting Bear I asked my OB about donation and he didn't know anything about it. I did a little poking around online but was unable to find anything, and admittedly I did not pursue it at much length. As it turned out, because the cord was around his neck so tightly, we had to cut it in the middle (to finish getting him out) and then cut it again closer to his navel. So I think it wouldn't have been possible to save or donate it anyway. But I still think it's an issue worth considering!!

Here are a few links for further reading (Thanks to Miche for sharing them first!):
Some basic information about cord blood banking (both personal banking or donation), with lots of links to additional information
How to donate cord blood--including information about who is eligible, where you can donate, and how the process works.
Frequently Asked Questions--including what is done with the cord blood, privacy issues, and what you can do if your hospital isn't currently set up for donations.
CordBloodRights--a site encouraging action for legislation to make saving/donating cord blood the default (instead of just throwing it away which is what usually happens unless you specifically request that it be saved). (This site is run by Cord Blood Registry, so it's not truly unbiased, but it does have some good information.)


There are those who prefer to leave the cord uncut until it has stopped pulsing (which means that all the blood has drained into the baby), or even those who do a "lotus birth" (which means that they don't cut the cord at all, but merely pack the placenta in herbs and then carry it around with the baby until the cord detaches naturally). If you believe in those things, then obviously cord blood banking isn't something that's going to work for you. However, for most standard births--particularly in hospitals--the cord is cut within minutes or seconds of birth, and there is plenty of blood still in the cord. If this is your plan for birth, then please take the time to check out some of these links and consider making a donation that could literally save lives!

Why Birthing Matters

A few months ago I was talking with Hubby about birth options, and he asked why women make such a big deal of where and how they give birth. After all, if the point is to get the baby out and have everybody healthy, then isn’t one place or method as good as another? (He really didn’t ask in a heartless way like that, he just genuinely wanted to understand.) This is an issue that is raised frequently, so here is my attempt to explain why birthing matters.

There are two parts to this in my opinion. First it’s about safety and respect, and secondly it’s about personal accomplishment.

Many women report feeling like they had no choices, no control, and/or no rights when they were laboring and birthing. Schedules had to be kept, this or that intervention came up, and lady you’d better be quiet because you don’t know anything anyway and we are trying to save your baby here. This sort of experience is often referred to as “birth rape” and (given the power-play involved) that seems to me an accurate term. During labor a woman is at her most vulnerable—not only is she without clothing and (commonly) laying down, but her body is doing things which are beyond her control, and in the midst of all that SHE HAS TO RELAX! After decades of being pushed around and told how we should labor and birth our babies, is it any wonder that women are becoming assertive about birth and insisting on different providers, locations, or methods for their births? A woman should to be able to choose the things which allow her to be comfortable. If there is anything that inhibits labor it is feeling uncomfortable! I don’t know anyone who can relax and let their body do its thing when they are stressed…it’s a little like trying to have a bowel movement with half the neighborhood watching.

There is a second reason why birthing choices matter though, and in some ways I think this one may even be bigger than the first, and that is that birthing a baby is the ultimate expression of femaleness. We in the western world live in a culture that has spent the last century de-feminizing women. Some of these changes are the result of technology, and many have come at the behest of the women themselves, but the result is the same: women are becoming more and more like men. They dress like men. They talk like men. They work in the same offices at the same kinds of jobs. They take medications so that their hormonal swings over the course of their menstrual cycle are minimalised. They can even limit or stop the menstruation itself. Many do not marry. Many do not have children (or if they do, they hand them off to be raised by nannies or daycare and school systems so that they can continue to work). They are out of touch with the natural cycles of the world: they live in a climate-controlled home that is the same temperature year-round. They work in a climate-controlled office. They drive in a climate-controlled car. They eat the same imported foods year-round and probably don’t even know what foods are in season when. As mentioned before, they control (or do away with) their menstrual cycles so that not even that bit of nature is allowed to occur naturally. But birth, that is an exclusively female domain. No man can do it. In other words, for many women, giving birth is the one time in her life when she is being true to what she is--when she is actually doing something as nature intended--and that can be a powerful (and empowering) experience. It is her chance to be a WOMAN rather than another androgynous clone. Is it any wonder that many women spend so much time and emotion planning for their births? Especially given that most women in our culture will only do it once or twice, is it any wonder that birthing matters?

Birth Contingency Plans

I think that one of the healthiest things a woman can do as she prepares for labor and birthing is to go ahead and think about the what-ifs, including the ugly ones. The majority of births happen relatively smoothly, but, for the few that don’t, I believe in being prepared. What if this or that goes wrong and this intervention or that change has to happen? What will she do in that moment when her ideal birth plan is blown out of the water? I know there are several birthing methods (most notably hypnosis-based ones) which insist on thinking only happy thoughts. They don’t want mommy-to-be to even THINK a word like ‘pain’ or to contemplate what she would do if she suddenly had to have an emergency c-section, let alone to consider what her preferences would be if (heaven forbid) her infant died. Honestly I think that’s sadly naive and can do a great disservice to the women involved. While I agree that thinking happy thoughts is good, and avoiding negative influences is also good, there is still something to be said for making thoughtful contingency plans. For those who write up birth plans, I think it’s wise to include a short version of these contingency plans at the end.

When I was expecting Bear, he spent the majority of the pregnancy in a head-up position. The earliest kicks I felt were low and led me to wonder about his positioning, the ultrasound verified that he was breech, and the location of his kicks in subsequent weeks (all in my pelvis) indicated that he seemed inclined to stay that way. As the pregnancy progressed and he got bigger (with less extra room to change position) I started to think a lot about what would happen if he remained breech on his birth day. I researched vaginal breech deliveries, including talking with my provider about whether he was comfortable or experienced with them (he was). That was of some comfort, but I was still troubled at the possibility of needing a c-section.
In my childbirth education class we spent some time visualizing our greatest birth worries—with the intent that we could work through them in class so that they would not haunt us in labor. When I was honest with myself I had to admit that my greatest fear was for things to go wrong, for the baby’s life to be in danger, and to culminate in needing a c-section. Perhaps that sounds quaint to someone who has had one, but I had lost 3 babies in the prior 2 years and was terrified of losing another baby. Having to have a c-section was, for me, a variation of the complete loss of control that I had felt during my miscarriages, and so it terrified me. In class we worked through the emotional side of our fears: visualizing ourselves in the situation, then accepting the facts, trusting my OB to provide appropriate and competent care, and focusing on the good things in the situation rather than on the negative ones. It was a hard day of class to say the least, but I came out of it feeling stronger and more prepared to deal with whatever may come.
In the subsequent weeks I did some studying on c-sections and made decisions about which kind of anesthesia I would prefer and who I wanted present if that was the path we had to follow. At the end of my 2-page birth plan I wrote the following:

If the baby is breech

• I would like to try to deliver vaginally, regardless of presentation
• Even if a cesarean seems necessary, I wish to go into labor on my own, rather than scheduling the surgery in advance.

If a Cesarean become necessary

• I prefer to have a spinal rather than a general anesthesia
• Give the baby immediate skin-to-skin contact—with me or with dad.
• Please ensure that [dad] is able to remain with baby while I am recovering, and let me be with my baby again as soon as is practical.
• Stitch the layers of my uterus separately. [Believe it or not this is an issue, as some OBs prefer to do it in one step, which can increase the risk of uterine rupture for future deliveries.]
• Please adhere as closely as possible to our other ‘after the birth’ wishes.

Thankfully, around 34 weeks Bear decided to flip over into the standard vertex (head-down) position, and I was able to remove the “if the baby is breech” portion from my birth plan before giving it to the hospital staff. I left the cesarean part though. It was not an issue for that birth, but I felt better knowing that it was there, and I have written something similar for this time around.

Of course I hope that my contingency plans never have to be realized, but in case they do, I feel better knowing that I have educated myself about the options. More even than that, I am glad that I have dared to think about the possibilities. I think that one of the most traumatic aspects of a traumatic birth is the shock of it all, but if the mother (and hopefully father too) have emotionally prepared for variations from the ideal plan, then the element of shock is lessened, and thus the trauma can be too.

On Birth Plans

Some people love them, some people hate them, and some doctors even post notices in their offices that they won’t allow them; but one way or the other most pregnant women have probably heard of writing a birth plan.
What is a birth plan? Most simply put, it is a way for the mother/parents to make her/their preferences known to the birth providers. The typical care provider has many patients at any given time, and can’t really be expected to remember every little thing that you want for your labor and delivery. Some attendants (such as hospital nurses) don’t usually meet the mother until she is already in labor, and have no way of differentiating her from any other laboring woman. Particularly if you want something that breaks from the routine of your chosen provider or location, it’s good to have it written down so that everyone knows.
I have heard some mothers say “oh, well, I’ve had babies with this provider before and everything was great last time” or “but I’m having a homebirth” and they assume that this means they don’t need to write anything down. As I said before though, I think it’s always worth writing things down. YOU may remember your last birth with clarity, but I suspect that Dr Fantastic has attended a few hundred deliveries since then, and he may or may not remember yours very well. Likewise, your adored midwife may have to send her partner if you go into labor at the same time as another mother, and she can’t very well be aware of your contingency plan preferences if you never tell her about them!

Every birth plan is a little different, but here are some basic suggestions for what might be included on one:

• Your name (and—in a hospital—your provider’s name) should be right at the top. You don’t want your plan getting mixed up with someone elses!
• Vital medical information such as allergies, high-risk status, or special concerns about yourself or the baby.
• Who you want present for the birth (or if there are certain people that you want kept out).
• Your preferences for labor—lighting, noise/music, privacy, eating, IVs, internal/external/intermittent fetal monitoring, movement, medication, attendants, etc.
• Your preferences for birth—episiotomy, birthing positions and locations, watching with a mirror, touching the baby’s head during crowning, who will catch the baby, etc
• Your preferences for immediately after the birth—cutting the cord, announcing the sex of the baby, skin-to-skin contact with the newborn, breastfeeding, and standard newborn routines (such as bathing, medications, tests, and shots).
• Your preferences from birth until discharge—rooming with the baby vs the nursery, visitors, binkie-usage, circumcision, or early discharge.
• Your contingency plans/preferences (more on that in a coming post)

Here are a few tips about writing birth plans:

• Keep it simple & short ~ I used bullet points. The version I gave to my doula and doctor was 2 pages, and I went over the items with them each at prenatal appointments. I made a 1 page version for the hospital staff because a nurse had told me that they don’t ever have time to look at multiple pages, and rarely even finish the first one!
• Keep it positive & polite ~ Try to word things with “I prefer____” rather than “Don’t do ____” because the last thing you need is for your attendants to feel defensive. I used phrases like “If possible” “I would prefer” and “Please.”
• Keep it practical ~ Realize that your choice of provider and location is going to dictate a few things, so if you’re birthing at a hospital try saying “I prefer minimal vaginal exams” rather than “Don’t do internal exams unless I ask for them”
• Bold or underline the vital things ~ Remember how they won’t have time to read the whole thing? If you have any drug allergies, put them top, center, and underlined. If you can sum up your other desires in one sentence, put that top, center, underlined, and boldfaced! (Mine was “Please discuss with us the benefits, risks, and alternatives of any procedure before doing it to me or the baby.”)

The BRAN Principle

Anytime one needs to make a medical decision nope, scratch that, most any decision, I believe it is important to consider all the sides of the issue. Unfortunately I find that very often people read one article or hear one story or one recommendation from someone they trust and then they just go with it without asking any more questions. I have a humanist perspective in that I don't think that anybody out there is deliberately trying to spread medical misinformation, but since there is so much conflicting information then it seems pretty obvious that the issues are more complicated than any one party is willing to admit. Thus my belief in studying it out for myself and then utilizing the BRAN principle.

In my childbirth class we were introduced to the "BRAN principle" which is to consider each potential course of action in light of the Benefits, Risks, Alternatives, and what would happen if we did Nothing (for the present). For example, while laboring with Bear I stalled out for several hours. I was having regular contractions, but was not dilating because the baby had floated up and there was no pressure on my cervix. The doctor said he could break my water, but if I didn't want that then I should go home because I wasn't progressing. He knew I was wary of interventions, so he gave me the choice. Well, the benefits of breaking my water were that the baby's head would re-engage and labor would almost certainly get moving. The risks were that without the water cushion labor was likely to get much more intense (which might affect my hopes for an unmedicated labor), and if labor did not progress as anticipated then broken water means an increased risk of infection, and thus a timeline for delivery (which could lead to needing pitocin or theoretically even a c-section). The alternative was to go home and try to rest and/or get things moving with the water sack intact. If we did nothing for the time being, well, that would mean going home. I knew that labor had to get more intense before the baby could come, and that because of the regular (if ineffective) contractions I wasn't going to be able to sleep anyway, so we opted to break my water. Was it interfereing with nature? Sure. Was it a good choice? I definitely think so. But most importantly, it was an informed choice.

Here in Alaska the public health department conducts regular screenings for Tuberculosis. It's an ugly disease, and one that has apparently held on here more strongly than in the rest of the country. I have never hesitated a moment in giving my permission for my children to be screened. If a screening comes back positive, that indicates that the person has been exposed to TB, so then they do another screen (a chest x-ray) to look for signs of actual infection (past or current). If the person has signs of infection, they put them on a medication. So far so good--I'm entirely comfortable with all of that. However, if the person does not have any signs of infection, the health department still wants to put them on 9 months of medication as a preventative/suppressive measure, in spite of the fact that the original screening has a certain rate of false positives (only some doctors will recommend re-screening before medicating). The downside of the suppressive medication is that it carries a risk of giving the person Hepatitis (aka liver failure). So they also prescribe vitamin B in an effort to prevent that possibility, and most doctors will do a blood test a month into the regimen to ensure that the liver is, in fact, not failing.
So wait, if the screening (which is safe, but may or may not give a false positive) comes back positive, then they will do an x-ray (which is more or less safe), and then regardless of the outcome of that x-ray they will prescribe a medication which is clearly only sortof safe?! Whoa, stop the train here, I think I needed to get off a couple of stops ago. Yes, I understand the desire to keep TB in check--I'm not arguing that point--but for someone with a clear x-ray, doesn't it make sense to require a second screening just to make sure before starting someone on a 9-month regimen of a medication that might kill them?!

Most medical actions (be they medications, procedures, or vaccinations) have some fairly clear intended benefits. Some have varying efficacy rates, so actual results may vary a bit, but the intended benefits are obvious. In many cases, the risks are not hard to determine either--some are decidedly larger than others, but pretty much any kind of action has some degree of risk. I think that most people are at least somewhat aware of these two sides of a choice. The parts that seem often overlooked are the alternatives (opting-out of the choice altogether, doing something else) and the always available option of doing nothing--at least for now.

Is that so very odd?



As my readers may have noticed, I have not shared my thoughts on swine flu nor the vaccination for it, nor do I intend to do so. I genuinely believe that it's best for each person to do their own study and make their own choice. However, the BRAN principle came to mind for me recently during a discussion on facebook, so I thought I would share it as something that is one of my guides in making these kinds of decisions.