The Vitamin K shot is the strangest topic I have ever set out to research, but, to me, it's not a good thing to give when it's not indicated. I instructed my midwives that if, in their opinion, it was necessary, then they could administer it to my baby. Otherwise, they knew I didn't want my baby to have it, so please don't give it unless it is believed to be a life saver.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g55-rCn_frc
Saturday, October 17, 2015
The Vitamin K Shot for Newborns
According to Doris Haire’s idea that epidurals and spinal anesthesia given to a laboring mother-to-be causes hemorrhage in the newborn, the vitamin K shot is not what is needed for the newborn: a drugless birth is. Prevention is not always giving something in order to possibly stop something bad from happening. It is analyzing why something bad may occur in the first place and not allowing it to happen. Is the vitamin K shot prevention, or permission to interfere medically, possibly negligently?
Because of the education and training acquired, perhaps weekly Bradley Method classes for expectant parents would help assure a drugless birthing process. At the very least, an expectant mother could ask to read the packages or paper work that come with a drug like bupivicaine long before labor to ascertain if she really wants to subject her fetus to the possible side effects. After all, reading the insert of the actual product a doctor may administer is truly informed consent. The Bradley Method supports active participation in the birthing process for home or hospital births and can help the father-to-be feel competent and supportive.
In considering birthing at home, for example, the expectant mother takes into consideration that her body is familiar with the germs within her own home. Precautions involving sterilization and cleanliness are put into place. When an expectant mother gives birth in her home environment, there is definitely a reduced need for antibiotics compared with that of a hospital, when the circulating air and the laundry (her hospital bed sheets being washed with all manner of germy bed sheets) are taken into consideration. Babies reportedly make two clotting factors close to their due date, right before birth. In an unborn child, the liver’s ability to produce blood clotting factors would be inhibited by the delivering mother’s antibiotic use, so the safer she is, the less need for antibiotics.
Antibiotic use by the mother also lowers her “bugs,” which some researches feel is unfortunate for the fetus in two ways. Being exposed to the mother’s bacteria-laden feces at birth may help the baby’s intestinal flora to make vitamin K. Also, the mom’s antibiotic use will lower the baby’s intestinal flora via the antibiotic crossing the placenta. The less need for antibiotics, the less need for the newborn to receive the vitamin K shot.
How is a newborn’s inability to clot blood related to the routine use of the vitamin K shot at birth? What is in the vitamin K shot, and how can humans get it naturally? Why would parents want to opt out of their newborn having the shot?
How is a newborn’s inability to clot blood related to the routine use of the vitamin K shot at birth? What is in the vitamin K shot, and how can humans get it naturally? Why would parents want to opt out of their newborn having the shot?
A newborn’s inability to clot blood the same as an older infant is related to the routine use of the vitamin K shot at birth because it is believed that the shot helps the baby to stop bleeding if bleeding should occur. Whether bleeding occurs or not, doctors think it of no consequence to have administered this anti-hemorrhage vitamin, believing it is better to be safe than sorry. In the U.S., the injection is delivered intramuscularly into the thigh. In Europe, three oral doses are administered.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says that the need for the shot is seen in vitamin K deficient two to twelve week-old babies. The deficiency occurred “primarily in exclusively breastfed infants who have received no or inadequate neonatal vitamin K prophylaxis.” Among mothers who have breast fed their infants, it would be hard to find any who breast fed exclusively for a lengthy time, at least in America. And when I asked several mothers if their infant had received the vitamin K shot, none said that they declined the shot, and most did not have a clue that it had been given to their baby. My baby was exclusively breastfed for six months (breastfed for nineteen months in all) and did not have the shot, and was not included in any study. The criteria for this research, a baby being exclusively breast fed for a lengthy time and having received no vitamin K, seems hard to come by, requiring a second a look at AAP study. Where did the AAP test this? How many two to twelve week old babies were included in the above research? If these were babies out of the reach of U.S. medical care, perhaps malnutrition or cleanliness were issues as well.
As far as data collection goes, babies within the first three months of life who do not receive the shot should statistically be included in hemorrhage or no hemorrhage categories. Next, babies who do receive the vitamin K shot at birth should be included in hemorrhage or no hemorrhage categories. Including the statistic of the mother’s drug use, or lack of drug use, would only add to the researchers’ and consumers’ understanding of this shot’s needfulness, effectiveness, and usefulness. As it is, only 0.25 to 1.7 percent of babies are recorded as having a hemorrhagic problem. Unfortunately, the research does not indicate if these hemorrhagic babies received a shot or did not receive a shot, and we don’t know if their mothers were on epileptic medicines, antibiotics, or administered drugs during the birth or not. In my own case, my daughter did not have the shot or any vitamin K procedure at or after her birth; she had a drugless birth, and she did not bleed. I repeat: no one has gathered information on this birth in any statistic. Even though past research does not confirm a genuine need for administering the vitamin K shot, this shot is routinely given at hospital, birth center, and home births.
Perhaps, overall, the births that take place in hospitals are more violent, since labor often has to be started again once the mother-to-be arrives, and the environment is very controlled, with the mother being hooked up to machines and gadgets. As a result, forceps, suction, and C-section procedures may be of higher frequency in hospital settings, and these procedures may lead to internal bleeding in the newborn. Those considering allowing their newborn to have this shot might research statistics on medical intervention procedures that can lead to bleeding in hospitals compared to the statistics of the use of these procedures in birthing center births and home births.
What is in the vitamin K shot and how can humans get vitamin K naturally? Vitamin K is a group of compounds including the plant form, phytonadione, which is found in food sources such as alfalfa, broccoli, cauliflower, green leafy vegetables, and seaweeds; menaquinone is made in the human intestine with the help of bacteria; and the synthetic form, menadiol, is in the shot. Some sources boast that vitamin K does not cross placental barriers and therefore the fetus does not benefit from the mother’s ingestion of vitamin K. Other sources claim it does. Some sources say that the mother’s bacteria within her feces can help colonize the bacteria in the newborn during birth.
I personally started ingesting Chlorella two months prior to my daughter’s due date with the intention of giving her every chance to be able to handle minor bleeding should it occur. Food products with chlorophyll, such as Chlorella and Barley Essence, are helpful for our blood. Dr. Yoshihide Hagiwara wrote long ago that chlorophyll, which gives plants their green color, and human blood are chemically identical, except that chlorophyll has magnesium in the center of the molecule, while human blood has iron in the center. Of course, if the midwives had judged at any point in the birthing process that the shot had been necessary, they had my permission to administer it.
Why would parents want to opt out of having their newborn receive the shot? There are separate consequences, as some apply to the procedure and some to the baby. There are several negative consequences associated with the shot: the ingredients themselves may cause problems to the newborn and the needle stick area may be exposed to germs as the shot is administered. As a result of receiving the shot, if an unnecessary procedure, the baby may experience over-toxicity of vitamin K and inappropriate cell division, and may develop psychological problems.
Like with any vitamin, mineral, or drug, use of the synthetic form may result in toxicity due to using too much, compared to naturally forming the vitamin from within or ingesting it in a natural form as found in vegetables. Too much vitamin K may lead to toxicity symptoms, such as chest constriction and abnormal clotting that may not be immediately noticed. For further warnings, the label of the shot should be consulted. The AquaMEPHYTON insert says, “Vitamin K should be injected into a muscle or vein only when it cannot be given by injection under the skin or taken by mouth.” Why? Because it may lead to death in some infants. (Ask your doctor or midwife where and how they plan to administer the shot). Other side effects in general may be “an allergic reaction, rash, itching, swelling, dizziness, or trouble breathing.” How is a newborn to express that he or she is feeling dizzy? The vitamin K shot has levels reportedly 20,000 times beyond the newborn’s own levels. So what, if anything, could this mean for a little body suddenly introduced to such high levels of a synthetic form of vitamin K, plus preservatives? One milligram used to be administered to low birth weight babies, like premature babies, since that was the accepted dose for an infant. Now it has been decided that sound protocol is to administer .5-1.0 mg. Many feel this shot was put into use without adequate research.
In addition to risks connected to over-toxicity, because vitamin K regulates cell division, there is a concern that too much in the newborn could lead to out of control cell division, leading to cancer.
Then there is the concern about the preservatives included in the injection. How many parents have allowed this shot without reading the insert to see what preservatives and other ingredients are inside the needle with the vitamin k? Before standing back and allowing this shot to be administered to their child, parents should be aware that benzyl alcohol has been used as a preservative. According to Wikipedia, in the 1980’s the death of sixteen newborns occurred from benzyl alcohol within saline flush solutions because the newborns were unable to metabolize and change the benzyl alcohol to a safe form within their systems. Their deaths led to the recommendation that this preservative not be used in products administered to newborns and that it only be approved in a five percent solution in a lice removal mixture recommended for infants older than six months. That means the lice removal mixture is not recommended for babies less than six months. Is benzyl alcohol in your child’s shot, and is it approved for babies under six months? At any rate, research the ingredients thoroughly to be certain it passes your scrutiny. There is also the question of the microscopic wound made at the needle site on the newborn’s body. A newborn has a weak, immature immune system. Especially if the baby has just been born in a hospital, vicious germs may enter at the injection site. Only if the wound was not there could anyone be certain that germs could not enter. Pain, swelling, and tenderness may result at the injection site and the baby’s awareness of these three symptoms cannot be verbalized.
Most articles that discuss the vitamin K controversy don’t touch on this aspect of the discussion: the needle stick to the baby can lead to possible psychological effects. Imagine it from the baby’s point of view. The baby comes suddenly and violently from a dark, warm, watery environment to a lighted, colder air environment (presuming this is not a water birth) and is absolutely overloaded with stimulation of a variety of types. To top it all off, it is stuck with a needle. What a fine “How do you do!” According to psychologist Dr. David B. Chamberlain, “We must alert the medical community to the psychological hazards of early pain and call for the removal of all man-made pain surrounding birth.” Wow, wouldn’t that be nice for the baby! He goes on to say, “Acute pain caused by skin-breaking procedures can lead to physiologic-instability and behavioral distress, and it has downstream effects on subsequent pain processing, development and stress responsitivity.” It certainly is a shame that modern births are surrounded with sensory overload for the baby. The rooms frequently have strong lights, the first human contact is often through gloved hands, and instruments greet the newborn by poking and jabbing at them. Some researchers believe that the younger the baby is when it is subjected to pain and trauma, the more damaging and longer lasting are the effects.
Some parents and researches feel that the routine administration of vitamin K is an unnecessary procedure. Perhaps parents who are cognizant believe risk factors need to be present in order to administer any drug, vaccine, or synthetic vitamin. Some parents have a mantra that if something is not indicated, then it is not for their child. When you step back and observe how many things will happen to your child simply out of routine, you need to become an expert on each matter and decide for yourselves if all these things are really necessary. For instance, nitrite to the newborn’s eyes, the Hepatitis B shot, and the vitamin K shot are all routinely administered, regardless of whether or not the mother has gonorrhea or Hepatitis B or the baby itself is at risk of bleeding. Some parents feel, for example, that if they do not plan to have a sexually active newborn and if they do not plan to have a drug user newborn, then perhaps the action of routinely giving the Hepatitis B shot to their newborn is not indicated. The vitamin K shot is in the same category of need versus routine.
Some parents opt out of the shot because of a possible cancer correlation. Other researchers state that there is absolutely no proven link between the shot and cancer. Some researchers have postulated that the increase of leukemia in children since the 1970’s could be related to having switched to the shot form of vitamin K in newborns. The only way to be certain would be to have only one intrusion, the vitamin K shot, occur at birth with a certain number of babies compared to no intrusions with the same number of babies, full term. Unfortunately, to know for certain if cancer in a child is due to the vitamin K, the preservative in the shot, or the trillion other factors involved with the child’s upbringing and health care would, in my opinion, be practically impossible. Again, some parents feel why risk their child’s health if the shot is not indicated? The injection supposedly started being administered in the 1970’s, but vitamin K was administered to newborns in some fashion as far back as 1961. So many factors are different with 1970’s kids compared to 2000’s kids that it would be nearly impossible to pinpoint the culprit of the increase in leukemia, but it certainly does not exclude the possibility of the involvement of the shot. I was a 1970’s kid. I did not have my food prepared in a microwave, eat genetically modified foods, or have thirty-plus vaccinations within a short period of time. Many in my generation, in fact, did not watch television to the extent modern kids do, nor did we get our music digitally, have routine exposure to adult levels of content through the media, spend so much time in doors under florescent lighting, and attend classes with crowded conditions and misbehaving classmates. I grew up with a mom who packed my lunch and sent me off to school. I ate breakfast and dinner at a table with my family where we talked. My mother didn’t serve hot dogs or cold cuts. Gosh, there are more factors that are not even coming to mind.
Perhaps parents would like to opt out of the shot, but have the oral kind administered. An oral vitamin K option for parents exists. It is supposedly administered over time, not all at once, so it is something you can inquire about with your obstetrician or midwife. I have also heard that it is not approved in the U.S. and that only injections are to be used in hospitals and birth centers. I have researched many topics over the years, spending fifteen years on vaccines alone before I became pregnant. I have found conflicting information about the need for vitamin K and inconsistent research in the results of having administered it. From the necessity of the shot, to if vitamin K can cross the placenta, to if the one in the shot is fat or water soluble, all need to be carefully considered. If I had the opportunity to decide all over, I would not change my opinion: medical intervention needs to be on a case-by-case basis. Is the procedure indicated for the baby in front of the doctor right now? For parents-to-be, this is only one aspect of your adventure. Good luck!
For expanded information, please read Immunobiology of Human Milk by Lars Hanson and Midwifery Today online. Spiritual Midwifery by Ina May Gaskin is also a great source about empowered birth.
Sources: http:aappolicy.aappublications.org/cg./content/full/pediatrics;112/1/191
http:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzyl alcohol#Reactionwww.gentlebirth.org/archives/vitktop.html#Controversy
http://www.medicinenet.com/vitamink-injection/article.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.govwww.netdoctor.co.uk/medicines/100001609.html
http://onlinehealthnews.org/2009
http://thebabybond.com/vitaminkinjectORnot.html
http://www.vaclib.org/chapter/inserts.htm#vitkwww.vitamin-insight.com/vitamins/vitamin-k.aspx
www..vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys
Because of the education and training acquired, perhaps weekly Bradley Method classes for expectant parents would help assure a drugless birthing process. At the very least, an expectant mother could ask to read the packages or paper work that come with a drug like bupivicaine long before labor to ascertain if she really wants to subject her fetus to the possible side effects. After all, reading the insert of the actual product a doctor may administer is truly informed consent. The Bradley Method supports active participation in the birthing process for home or hospital births and can help the father-to-be feel competent and supportive.
In considering birthing at home, for example, the expectant mother takes into consideration that her body is familiar with the germs within her own home. Precautions involving sterilization and cleanliness are put into place. When an expectant mother gives birth in her home environment, there is definitely a reduced need for antibiotics compared with that of a hospital, when the circulating air and the laundry (her hospital bed sheets being washed with all manner of germy bed sheets) are taken into consideration. Babies reportedly make two clotting factors close to their due date, right before birth. In an unborn child, the liver’s ability to produce blood clotting factors would be inhibited by the delivering mother’s antibiotic use, so the safer she is, the less need for antibiotics.
Antibiotic use by the mother also lowers her “bugs,” which some researches feel is unfortunate for the fetus in two ways. Being exposed to the mother’s bacteria-laden feces at birth may help the baby’s intestinal flora to make vitamin K. Also, the mom’s antibiotic use will lower the baby’s intestinal flora via the antibiotic crossing the placenta. The less need for antibiotics, the less need for the newborn to receive the vitamin K shot.
How is a newborn’s inability to clot blood related to the routine use of the vitamin K shot at birth? What is in the vitamin K shot, and how can humans get it naturally? Why would parents want to opt out of their newborn having the shot?
How is a newborn’s inability to clot blood related to the routine use of the vitamin K shot at birth? What is in the vitamin K shot, and how can humans get it naturally? Why would parents want to opt out of their newborn having the shot?
A newborn’s inability to clot blood the same as an older infant is related to the routine use of the vitamin K shot at birth because it is believed that the shot helps the baby to stop bleeding if bleeding should occur. Whether bleeding occurs or not, doctors think it of no consequence to have administered this anti-hemorrhage vitamin, believing it is better to be safe than sorry. In the U.S., the injection is delivered intramuscularly into the thigh. In Europe, three oral doses are administered.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says that the need for the shot is seen in vitamin K deficient two to twelve week-old babies. The deficiency occurred “primarily in exclusively breastfed infants who have received no or inadequate neonatal vitamin K prophylaxis.” Among mothers who have breast fed their infants, it would be hard to find any who breast fed exclusively for a lengthy time, at least in America. And when I asked several mothers if their infant had received the vitamin K shot, none said that they declined the shot, and most did not have a clue that it had been given to their baby. My baby was exclusively breastfed for six months (breastfed for nineteen months in all) and did not have the shot, and was not included in any study. The criteria for this research, a baby being exclusively breast fed for a lengthy time and having received no vitamin K, seems hard to come by, requiring a second a look at AAP study. Where did the AAP test this? How many two to twelve week old babies were included in the above research? If these were babies out of the reach of U.S. medical care, perhaps malnutrition or cleanliness were issues as well.
As far as data collection goes, babies within the first three months of life who do not receive the shot should statistically be included in hemorrhage or no hemorrhage categories. Next, babies who do receive the vitamin K shot at birth should be included in hemorrhage or no hemorrhage categories. Including the statistic of the mother’s drug use, or lack of drug use, would only add to the researchers’ and consumers’ understanding of this shot’s needfulness, effectiveness, and usefulness. As it is, only 0.25 to 1.7 percent of babies are recorded as having a hemorrhagic problem. Unfortunately, the research does not indicate if these hemorrhagic babies received a shot or did not receive a shot, and we don’t know if their mothers were on epileptic medicines, antibiotics, or administered drugs during the birth or not. In my own case, my daughter did not have the shot or any vitamin K procedure at or after her birth; she had a drugless birth, and she did not bleed. I repeat: no one has gathered information on this birth in any statistic. Even though past research does not confirm a genuine need for administering the vitamin K shot, this shot is routinely given at hospital, birth center, and home births.
Perhaps, overall, the births that take place in hospitals are more violent, since labor often has to be started again once the mother-to-be arrives, and the environment is very controlled, with the mother being hooked up to machines and gadgets. As a result, forceps, suction, and C-section procedures may be of higher frequency in hospital settings, and these procedures may lead to internal bleeding in the newborn. Those considering allowing their newborn to have this shot might research statistics on medical intervention procedures that can lead to bleeding in hospitals compared to the statistics of the use of these procedures in birthing center births and home births.
What is in the vitamin K shot and how can humans get vitamin K naturally? Vitamin K is a group of compounds including the plant form, phytonadione, which is found in food sources such as alfalfa, broccoli, cauliflower, green leafy vegetables, and seaweeds; menaquinone is made in the human intestine with the help of bacteria; and the synthetic form, menadiol, is in the shot. Some sources boast that vitamin K does not cross placental barriers and therefore the fetus does not benefit from the mother’s ingestion of vitamin K. Other sources claim it does. Some sources say that the mother’s bacteria within her feces can help colonize the bacteria in the newborn during birth.
I personally started ingesting Chlorella two months prior to my daughter’s due date with the intention of giving her every chance to be able to handle minor bleeding should it occur. Food products with chlorophyll, such as Chlorella and Barley Essence, are helpful for our blood. Dr. Yoshihide Hagiwara wrote long ago that chlorophyll, which gives plants their green color, and human blood are chemically identical, except that chlorophyll has magnesium in the center of the molecule, while human blood has iron in the center. Of course, if the midwives had judged at any point in the birthing process that the shot had been necessary, they had my permission to administer it.
Why would parents want to opt out of having their newborn receive the shot? There are separate consequences, as some apply to the procedure and some to the baby. There are several negative consequences associated with the shot: the ingredients themselves may cause problems to the newborn and the needle stick area may be exposed to germs as the shot is administered. As a result of receiving the shot, if an unnecessary procedure, the baby may experience over-toxicity of vitamin K and inappropriate cell division, and may develop psychological problems.
Like with any vitamin, mineral, or drug, use of the synthetic form may result in toxicity due to using too much, compared to naturally forming the vitamin from within or ingesting it in a natural form as found in vegetables. Too much vitamin K may lead to toxicity symptoms, such as chest constriction and abnormal clotting that may not be immediately noticed. For further warnings, the label of the shot should be consulted. The AquaMEPHYTON insert says, “Vitamin K should be injected into a muscle or vein only when it cannot be given by injection under the skin or taken by mouth.” Why? Because it may lead to death in some infants. (Ask your doctor or midwife where and how they plan to administer the shot). Other side effects in general may be “an allergic reaction, rash, itching, swelling, dizziness, or trouble breathing.” How is a newborn to express that he or she is feeling dizzy? The vitamin K shot has levels reportedly 20,000 times beyond the newborn’s own levels. So what, if anything, could this mean for a little body suddenly introduced to such high levels of a synthetic form of vitamin K, plus preservatives? One milligram used to be administered to low birth weight babies, like premature babies, since that was the accepted dose for an infant. Now it has been decided that sound protocol is to administer .5-1.0 mg. Many feel this shot was put into use without adequate research.
In addition to risks connected to over-toxicity, because vitamin K regulates cell division, there is a concern that too much in the newborn could lead to out of control cell division, leading to cancer.
Then there is the concern about the preservatives included in the injection. How many parents have allowed this shot without reading the insert to see what preservatives and other ingredients are inside the needle with the vitamin k? Before standing back and allowing this shot to be administered to their child, parents should be aware that benzyl alcohol has been used as a preservative. According to Wikipedia, in the 1980’s the death of sixteen newborns occurred from benzyl alcohol within saline flush solutions because the newborns were unable to metabolize and change the benzyl alcohol to a safe form within their systems. Their deaths led to the recommendation that this preservative not be used in products administered to newborns and that it only be approved in a five percent solution in a lice removal mixture recommended for infants older than six months. That means the lice removal mixture is not recommended for babies less than six months. Is benzyl alcohol in your child’s shot, and is it approved for babies under six months? At any rate, research the ingredients thoroughly to be certain it passes your scrutiny. There is also the question of the microscopic wound made at the needle site on the newborn’s body. A newborn has a weak, immature immune system. Especially if the baby has just been born in a hospital, vicious germs may enter at the injection site. Only if the wound was not there could anyone be certain that germs could not enter. Pain, swelling, and tenderness may result at the injection site and the baby’s awareness of these three symptoms cannot be verbalized.
Most articles that discuss the vitamin K controversy don’t touch on this aspect of the discussion: the needle stick to the baby can lead to possible psychological effects. Imagine it from the baby’s point of view. The baby comes suddenly and violently from a dark, warm, watery environment to a lighted, colder air environment (presuming this is not a water birth) and is absolutely overloaded with stimulation of a variety of types. To top it all off, it is stuck with a needle. What a fine “How do you do!” According to psychologist Dr. David B. Chamberlain, “We must alert the medical community to the psychological hazards of early pain and call for the removal of all man-made pain surrounding birth.” Wow, wouldn’t that be nice for the baby! He goes on to say, “Acute pain caused by skin-breaking procedures can lead to physiologic-instability and behavioral distress, and it has downstream effects on subsequent pain processing, development and stress responsitivity.” It certainly is a shame that modern births are surrounded with sensory overload for the baby. The rooms frequently have strong lights, the first human contact is often through gloved hands, and instruments greet the newborn by poking and jabbing at them. Some researchers believe that the younger the baby is when it is subjected to pain and trauma, the more damaging and longer lasting are the effects.
Some parents and researches feel that the routine administration of vitamin K is an unnecessary procedure. Perhaps parents who are cognizant believe risk factors need to be present in order to administer any drug, vaccine, or synthetic vitamin. Some parents have a mantra that if something is not indicated, then it is not for their child. When you step back and observe how many things will happen to your child simply out of routine, you need to become an expert on each matter and decide for yourselves if all these things are really necessary. For instance, nitrite to the newborn’s eyes, the Hepatitis B shot, and the vitamin K shot are all routinely administered, regardless of whether or not the mother has gonorrhea or Hepatitis B or the baby itself is at risk of bleeding. Some parents feel, for example, that if they do not plan to have a sexually active newborn and if they do not plan to have a drug user newborn, then perhaps the action of routinely giving the Hepatitis B shot to their newborn is not indicated. The vitamin K shot is in the same category of need versus routine.
Some parents opt out of the shot because of a possible cancer correlation. Other researchers state that there is absolutely no proven link between the shot and cancer. Some researchers have postulated that the increase of leukemia in children since the 1970’s could be related to having switched to the shot form of vitamin K in newborns. The only way to be certain would be to have only one intrusion, the vitamin K shot, occur at birth with a certain number of babies compared to no intrusions with the same number of babies, full term. Unfortunately, to know for certain if cancer in a child is due to the vitamin K, the preservative in the shot, or the trillion other factors involved with the child’s upbringing and health care would, in my opinion, be practically impossible. Again, some parents feel why risk their child’s health if the shot is not indicated? The injection supposedly started being administered in the 1970’s, but vitamin K was administered to newborns in some fashion as far back as 1961. So many factors are different with 1970’s kids compared to 2000’s kids that it would be nearly impossible to pinpoint the culprit of the increase in leukemia, but it certainly does not exclude the possibility of the involvement of the shot. I was a 1970’s kid. I did not have my food prepared in a microwave, eat genetically modified foods, or have thirty-plus vaccinations within a short period of time. Many in my generation, in fact, did not watch television to the extent modern kids do, nor did we get our music digitally, have routine exposure to adult levels of content through the media, spend so much time in doors under florescent lighting, and attend classes with crowded conditions and misbehaving classmates. I grew up with a mom who packed my lunch and sent me off to school. I ate breakfast and dinner at a table with my family where we talked. My mother didn’t serve hot dogs or cold cuts. Gosh, there are more factors that are not even coming to mind.
Perhaps parents would like to opt out of the shot, but have the oral kind administered. An oral vitamin K option for parents exists. It is supposedly administered over time, not all at once, so it is something you can inquire about with your obstetrician or midwife. I have also heard that it is not approved in the U.S. and that only injections are to be used in hospitals and birth centers. I have researched many topics over the years, spending fifteen years on vaccines alone before I became pregnant. I have found conflicting information about the need for vitamin K and inconsistent research in the results of having administered it. From the necessity of the shot, to if vitamin K can cross the placenta, to if the one in the shot is fat or water soluble, all need to be carefully considered. If I had the opportunity to decide all over, I would not change my opinion: medical intervention needs to be on a case-by-case basis. Is the procedure indicated for the baby in front of the doctor right now? For parents-to-be, this is only one aspect of your adventure. Good luck!
For expanded information, please read Immunobiology of Human Milk by Lars Hanson and Midwifery Today online. Spiritual Midwifery by Ina May Gaskin is also a great source about empowered birth.
Sources: http:aappolicy.aappublications.org/cg./content/full/pediatrics;112/1/191
http:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzyl alcohol#Reactionwww.gentlebirth.org/archives/vitktop.html#Controversy
http://www.medicinenet.com/vitamink-injection/article.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.govwww.netdoctor.co.uk/medicines/100001609.html
http://onlinehealthnews.org/2009
http://thebabybond.com/vitaminkinjectORnot.html
http://www.vaclib.org/chapter/inserts.htm#vitkwww.vitamin-insight.com/vitamins/vitamin-k.aspx
www..vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys
The Routine Use of the Vitamin K Shot
The Vitamin K shot is routinely given to a newborn proactively to promote blood coagulation in the event that the newborn experiences bleeding. Babies are placed in harm’s way by the mother’s choices to use anesthesia and antibiotics, particularly since spinal anesthesia at the birth, antibiotic use by the mother during pregnancy, and a traumatic birth are all believed to contribute to a newborn’s bleeding. Assessing a baby’s needs on an individual basis may avoid the unnecessary use of the Vitamin K shot on a newborn.
Spinal anesthesia given to a laboring mother-to-be can cause hemorrhage in the newborn. At the very least, an expectant mother could ask to read the paperwork that comes with a drug like bupivicaine long before labor to ascertain if she really wants to subject her fetus to the possible side effects. After all, reading the insert of the actual product a doctor may administer is truly informed consent. Because education and training could achieve a different outcome, perhaps weekly Bradley Method classes for expectant parents would help ensure a drugless birthing process. The Bradley Method supports active participation in the birthing process for home or hospital births and can help the father-to-be feel competent and supportive, thus helping the mother to avoid drugs, and possibly helping the baby to avoid needing the Vitamin K shot.
When a woman gives birth in her home environment where her body is familiar with the local germs, there is definitely a reduced need for antibiotics compared with that of a hospital, especially when the circulating air and the laundry (her hospital bed sheets being washed with all manner of germy bed sheets) are taken into consideration. In birthing at home or in a birthing clinic, precautions involving sterilization and cleanliness will be put into place with the support of the midwife. Possibly before conceiving, the mother-to-be can research the many valuable drug-free solutions to various maladies, so ideas can be easily put into practice should the need for a “medicine” arise during pregnancy.
Since Vitamin K is produced by beneficial bacteria, antibiotic use by the mother can lead directly to newborn bleeding because it lowers her beneficial bacteria count, which some researchers feel is unfortunate for the fetus in two ways. First, being exposed to the mother’s bacteria-laden feces at birth may help the baby’s intestinal flora to make Vitamin K. Also, according to some experts, the mom’s antibiotic use will lower the baby’s intestinal flora via the antibiotic’s crossing the placenta. Babies reportedly make two clotting factors close to their due date, right before birth. Vitamin K acts in the liver and, unfortunately, while the child is still connected to the mother, the baby’s liver’s ability to produce blood clotting factors is inhibited by the delivering mother’s antibiotic use. With no maternal antibiotic use, the newborn’s need for the Vitamin K shot is greatly reduced.
To be sure, the births that take place in hospitals are more violent, since labor often has to be started again once the mother-to-be arrives, and the environment is very controlled, with the mother being hooked up to machines and gadgets. As a result, forceps, suction, C-sections, and premature clamping of the umbilicus occur at a higher frequency in hospital settings, and these procedures may lead to internal bleeding in the newborn.
Prevention is not always routinely administering something in order to possibly stop something bad from happening. It’s analyzing why something bad may occur in the first place and not allowing it to happen. If a newborn’s needs were assessed on an individual basis, the routine and unnecessary use of this shot may be avoided.
Sources:
http:/thebabybond.com/vitaminKinjectORnot.html
http:/www.netdoctor.co.uk/medicine/100001609.html
http://venturabirthcenter.net
www.bradleybirth.com
Recognize Issues in the Media for Fanning Separation and Creating Distraction
According to...Ruen.com, dispelling myths about the Confederacy is easy.
http://www.rulen.com/myths/
History books, the media, the school systems, etc abound in falsehoods and inaccuracies of Confederate and Southern history. This fact sheet will help to clarify and dispell some of these rampant inaccuracies.
MYTH - The War of 1861 - 1865 was fought over slavery.
FACT - Terribly untrue. The North fought the war over money. Plain and simple. When the South started Secession, Lincoln was asked, "Why not let the South go in peace?" To which he replied, "I can't let them go. Who would pay for the government?" Sensing total financial ruin for the North, Lincoln waged war on the South. The South fought the War to repel Northern aggression and invasion.
MYTH - Only Southerners owned slaves.
FACT - Entirely untrue. Many Northern civilians owned slaves. Prior to, during and even after the War Of Northern Aggression.
Surprisingly, to many history impaired individuals, most Union Generals and staff had slaves to serve them! William T. Sherman had many slaves that served him until well after the war was over and did not free them until late in 1865.
U.S. Grant also had several slaves, who were only freed after the 13th amendment in December of 1865. When asked why he didn't free his slaves earlier, Grant stated "Good help is so hard to come by these days."
Contrarily, Confederate General Robert E. Lee freed his slaves (which he never purchased - they were inherited) in 1862!!! Lee freed his slaves several years before the war was over, and considerably earlier than his Northern counterparts. And during the fierce early days of the war when the South was obliterating the Yankee armies!
Lastly, and most importantly, why did NORTHERN States outlaw slavery only AFTER the war was over? The so-called "Emancipation Proclamation" of Lincoln only gave freedom to slaves in the SOUTH! NOT in the North! This pecksniffery even went so far as to find the state of Delaware rejecting the 13th Amendment in December of 1865 and did not ratify it (13th Amendment / free the slaves) until 1901!
MYTH - The Confederate Battle Flag was flown on slave ships.
FACT - NONE of the flags of the Confederacy or Southern Nation ever flew over a slave ship. Nor did the South own or operate any slaves ships. The English, the Dutch and the Portugese brought slaves to this country, not the Southern Nation.
BUT, even more monumental, it is also very important to know and understand that Federal, Yankee, Union ships brought slaves to America! These ships were from the New England states, and their hypocrisy is atrocious.
These Federals were ones that ended up crying the loudest about slavery. But without their ships, many of the slaves would have never arrived here. They made countless fortunes on the delivery of slaves as well as the products madefrom raw materials such as cotton and tobacco in the South.
This is the problem with Yankee history History is overwhelmingly portrayed incorrectly by most of the Federal & Yankee books and media.
MYTH - The Confederate Battle Flag represented the Southern Nation.
FACT - Not true. While the Southern Battle flag was carried into battle, the Southern Nation had 3 different National flags during the course of the war.
The First National flag was changed due to a resemblance of the US flag.
The Second National flag was subsequently modified due to the similarity to a flag of truce.
The Third National flag was the adopted flag of the Confederacy.
The Confederate Battle Flag was never a National Flag of the Confederacy. It was carried into battle by several armies such as the Army Of Northen Virginia and the Army of Tennessee. Was also used as a Naval Jack by the Confederate Navy.
MYTH - The Confederate Battle Flag is known as the "Stars & Bars".
FACT - A common misconception. The First National Confederate Flag is correctly known as the "Stars & Bars". The Confederate Battle Flag is known as the "Southern Cross".
MYTH - The Confederate Battle Flag represents racism today.
FACT - The Confederate Battle Flag today finds itself in the center of much controversy and hoopla going on in several states. The cry to take this flag down is unjustified. It is very important to keep in mind that the Confederate Battle Flag was simply just that. A battle flag. It was never even a National flag, so how could it have flown over a slave nation or represented slavery or racism? This myth is continued by lack of education and ignorance. Those that villify the Confederate Battle Flag are very confused about history and have jumped upon a bandwagon with loose wheels.
MYTH - The United States Flag represented freedom.
FACT - No chance. The US flag flew over a slave nation for over 85 years! The North tolerated slavery and acknowledged it as a Division Of Labor. The North made a vast fortune on slavery and it's commodities. It wasn't until the South decided to leave the Union that the North objected. The North knew it could not survive without the Southern money. That is the true definition of hypocrisy.
MYTH - Abraham Lincoln was the Great Emancipator.
FACT - While Lincoln has went down in history as the Great Emancipator, many would not care to hear his real thoughts on people of color. Martyred President Abraham Lincoln was fervently making plans to send all freed slaves to the jungles of Central America once the war was over. Knowing that African society would never allow the slaves to return back to Africa, Lincoln also did not want the slaves in the US. He thought the jungles of Central America would be the best solution and conducive to the freed slaves best interest. The only thing that kept this from happening, was his assassination.
MYTH - The South revered slavery.
FACT - A very interesting fact on slavery is that at the time the War of 1861 -1865 officially commenced, the Southern States were actually in the process of freeing all slaves in the South. Russia had freed it's servants in 1859, and the South took great note of this. Had military intervention not been forced upon the South, a very different America would have been realized then as well as now.
MYTH - The Confederate Army was comprised of rich slave owners.
FACT - Very far from true. The vast majority of soldiers in the Confederate Army were simple men of meager income. Most of which were hard working farmers and common men. Then, as now, very few rich men ever fight a war.
MYTH - Only the North had men of color in their ranks.
FACT - Quite simply a major falsehood of history. Many blacks, both free and of their own will, joined the Confederate Army to fight for their beloved Southern home. Additionally, men of other ethnic extraction fought as well. Oriental, Mexican & Spanish men as well as Native American Indians fought with pride for the South.
Today, many men of color are members in the heritage group SCV - Sons Of Confederate Veterans. These men of color and pride rejoice in their heritage. The continued attacks on the Southern Nation, The Confederacy, and her symbols are a terrible outrage to these fine people. These attacks should be denounced with as much fervor as those who denounce the South.
MYTH - The Confederate Flags are an authorized symbol of Aryan, KKK and hate groups.
FACT - Quite the contrary. These dispicable organizations such as the KKK and Aryans have taken a hallowed piece of history, and have plagued good Southern folks and the memories of fine Confederate Soldiers that fought under the flag with their perverse agenda. IN NO WAY does the Confederate Flag represent hate or violence. Heritage groups such as the SCV battle daily the damage done to a proud nation by these hate groups. The SCV denounces all hate groups, and pridefully boast HERITAGE - NOT HATE.
MYTH - The SCV - Sons Of Confederate Veterans are a racist, hate group.
FACT - This is a blatant attack on one of the finest heritage groups ever. The SCV - Sons Of Confederate Veterans are a historical, patriotic and non-political organization comprised of descendents of Confederate Soldiers and sailors dedicated to insuring that a true history of the 1861 -1865 period is preserved and presented to the public. The SCV continues to educate the public of the memory and reputation of the Confederate soldier as well as the motives for his suffering and sacrifice.
The SCV - Sons Of Confederate Veterans are in NO WAY affiliated with, nor does it recognize or condone the terrible legacy of hate groups such as the KKK.
http://www.rulen.com/myths/
History books, the media, the school systems, etc abound in falsehoods and inaccuracies of Confederate and Southern history. This fact sheet will help to clarify and dispell some of these rampant inaccuracies.
MYTH - The War of 1861 - 1865 was fought over slavery.
FACT - Terribly untrue. The North fought the war over money. Plain and simple. When the South started Secession, Lincoln was asked, "Why not let the South go in peace?" To which he replied, "I can't let them go. Who would pay for the government?" Sensing total financial ruin for the North, Lincoln waged war on the South. The South fought the War to repel Northern aggression and invasion.
FACT - Entirely untrue. Many Northern civilians owned slaves. Prior to, during and even after the War Of Northern Aggression.
Surprisingly, to many history impaired individuals, most Union Generals and staff had slaves to serve them! William T. Sherman had many slaves that served him until well after the war was over and did not free them until late in 1865.
U.S. Grant also had several slaves, who were only freed after the 13th amendment in December of 1865. When asked why he didn't free his slaves earlier, Grant stated "Good help is so hard to come by these days."
Contrarily, Confederate General Robert E. Lee freed his slaves (which he never purchased - they were inherited) in 1862!!! Lee freed his slaves several years before the war was over, and considerably earlier than his Northern counterparts. And during the fierce early days of the war when the South was obliterating the Yankee armies!
Lastly, and most importantly, why did NORTHERN States outlaw slavery only AFTER the war was over? The so-called "Emancipation Proclamation" of Lincoln only gave freedom to slaves in the SOUTH! NOT in the North! This pecksniffery even went so far as to find the state of Delaware rejecting the 13th Amendment in December of 1865 and did not ratify it (13th Amendment / free the slaves) until 1901!
FACT - NONE of the flags of the Confederacy or Southern Nation ever flew over a slave ship. Nor did the South own or operate any slaves ships. The English, the Dutch and the Portugese brought slaves to this country, not the Southern Nation.
BUT, even more monumental, it is also very important to know and understand that Federal, Yankee, Union ships brought slaves to America! These ships were from the New England states, and their hypocrisy is atrocious.
These Federals were ones that ended up crying the loudest about slavery. But without their ships, many of the slaves would have never arrived here. They made countless fortunes on the delivery of slaves as well as the products madefrom raw materials such as cotton and tobacco in the South.
This is the problem with Yankee history History is overwhelmingly portrayed incorrectly by most of the Federal & Yankee books and media.
FACT - Not true. While the Southern Battle flag was carried into battle, the Southern Nation had 3 different National flags during the course of the war.
The First National flag was changed due to a resemblance of the US flag.
The Second National flag was subsequently modified due to the similarity to a flag of truce.
The Third National flag was the adopted flag of the Confederacy.
The Confederate Battle Flag was never a National Flag of the Confederacy. It was carried into battle by several armies such as the Army Of Northen Virginia and the Army of Tennessee. Was also used as a Naval Jack by the Confederate Navy.
FACT - A common misconception. The First National Confederate Flag is correctly known as the "Stars & Bars". The Confederate Battle Flag is known as the "Southern Cross".
FACT - The Confederate Battle Flag today finds itself in the center of much controversy and hoopla going on in several states. The cry to take this flag down is unjustified. It is very important to keep in mind that the Confederate Battle Flag was simply just that. A battle flag. It was never even a National flag, so how could it have flown over a slave nation or represented slavery or racism? This myth is continued by lack of education and ignorance. Those that villify the Confederate Battle Flag are very confused about history and have jumped upon a bandwagon with loose wheels.
FACT - No chance. The US flag flew over a slave nation for over 85 years! The North tolerated slavery and acknowledged it as a Division Of Labor. The North made a vast fortune on slavery and it's commodities. It wasn't until the South decided to leave the Union that the North objected. The North knew it could not survive without the Southern money. That is the true definition of hypocrisy.
FACT - While Lincoln has went down in history as the Great Emancipator, many would not care to hear his real thoughts on people of color. Martyred President Abraham Lincoln was fervently making plans to send all freed slaves to the jungles of Central America once the war was over. Knowing that African society would never allow the slaves to return back to Africa, Lincoln also did not want the slaves in the US. He thought the jungles of Central America would be the best solution and conducive to the freed slaves best interest. The only thing that kept this from happening, was his assassination.
FACT - A very interesting fact on slavery is that at the time the War of 1861 -1865 officially commenced, the Southern States were actually in the process of freeing all slaves in the South. Russia had freed it's servants in 1859, and the South took great note of this. Had military intervention not been forced upon the South, a very different America would have been realized then as well as now.
FACT - Very far from true. The vast majority of soldiers in the Confederate Army were simple men of meager income. Most of which were hard working farmers and common men. Then, as now, very few rich men ever fight a war.
FACT - Quite simply a major falsehood of history. Many blacks, both free and of their own will, joined the Confederate Army to fight for their beloved Southern home. Additionally, men of other ethnic extraction fought as well. Oriental, Mexican & Spanish men as well as Native American Indians fought with pride for the South.
Today, many men of color are members in the heritage group SCV - Sons Of Confederate Veterans. These men of color and pride rejoice in their heritage. The continued attacks on the Southern Nation, The Confederacy, and her symbols are a terrible outrage to these fine people. These attacks should be denounced with as much fervor as those who denounce the South.
FACT - Quite the contrary. These dispicable organizations such as the KKK and Aryans have taken a hallowed piece of history, and have plagued good Southern folks and the memories of fine Confederate Soldiers that fought under the flag with their perverse agenda. IN NO WAY does the Confederate Flag represent hate or violence. Heritage groups such as the SCV battle daily the damage done to a proud nation by these hate groups. The SCV denounces all hate groups, and pridefully boast HERITAGE - NOT HATE.
FACT - This is a blatant attack on one of the finest heritage groups ever. The SCV - Sons Of Confederate Veterans are a historical, patriotic and non-political organization comprised of descendents of Confederate Soldiers and sailors dedicated to insuring that a true history of the 1861 -1865 period is preserved and presented to the public. The SCV continues to educate the public of the memory and reputation of the Confederate soldier as well as the motives for his suffering and sacrifice.
The SCV - Sons Of Confederate Veterans are in NO WAY affiliated with, nor does it recognize or condone the terrible legacy of hate groups such as the KKK.
Thursday, October 15, 2015
Check List to Halt Diabetes
- · Recognize that Western Medicine only knows how to do repair work that mostly involves drugs, so don’t ask only a doctor what can be done for the prevention and cure of any diabetic state. See the doctor as ignorant if all he or she can do is offer drugs or Insulin. Ask a variety of practitioners what they suggest.
- · If you need Insulin, look into Dr. Dale’s products, because no hormone replacement should ever be taken. Her homeopathic remedy is safe and effective along with a variety of herbal formulas that will address other imbalances such as a toxic and or deficient system.
- · What are you eating? No pesticides, non-irridated, non-GMOed foods that have Qi and are fresh should be sought. Make sure that food from a box, can, or package doesn’t comprise much of your diet and make sure the label is not extensive. The fewer words, the better.
- · Where are you eating? Restaurants may have pesticided, GMOed, irradiated foods that are not as fresh as you could possibly find in your own garden, for example. The foods may have been imported from other countries and they may have even been sulphered. Ice in ice machines is bacteria-laden, and it's not the beneficial kind.
- · What are you doing while you are eating? Being alone sometimes and chewing thoroughly, enjoying each bite as well as enjoying the company of someone who uplifts you are important. Watching TV or reading while eating is not advised, nor is eating on the run. Take time and enjoy eating.
- Who prepares your food on a daily basis? The occasional fast food employee who hates his job will add dense vibrations to your food, but this is not a serious matter if you usually have your food prepared for you by a loved one who enjoys supporting the family. Preparing and cooking for yourself is also a good idea.
- ·
Do you exercise? No, running for the cell phone does not
constitute exercise. Do you enjoy
horseback riding, swinging on a swing at a park, dancing, or some of the
obvious sports? Find a way to make the
experience enjoyable. I enjoy long walks
best when either accompanied by a friend, or while reading a book.
- Stop getting vaccinations. Like practically every health issue, Diabetes may be caused either by what vaccines do to your body through suppressing true immunity and true physiology, or by an ingredient within the vaccine adversely acting on your body.
- Is there sweetness in your life? There are so many therapeutic modalities out there to assist you in integrating old hurts and resolving bitterness. Find your bliss. Where you work and with whom, may add to or take away from your health.
- Juicing non-pesticided, non-irridated, non-GMOed produce is also beneficial. Organic sodium and other minerals are very tiny and powerful for our health. When we juice and drink immediately, we absorb enzymes and such before they are altered. Our body absorbs these nutrients effortlessly, creating more nutrition for our cells with which they may work, because, about a half hour later, we may eat, gaining even more nutrition. Clean your produce with diluted 35% Food Grade Hydrogen Peroxide or ozone.
- Get outside and soak up some rays. This doesn't mean lying out in the sun on an extremely hot day. It means doing a sport for a few hours, or sometimes even being under a little shelter, but allowing rays to passively penetrate your naked eye. It has been said that about twenty-four hours is required for the vitamin D from the sun to be synthesized by your body. Perhaps, being for therapeutic reasons, the bathing should come before exposure to the sun, and not again for another twenty-four hours.
- Make sure your water is heavy metal-free. Whether for bathing, showering, or drinking, you don't want your H2O experience to be another version of a gas chamber or toxic in general. Drink enough water by having a good, long drink a half hour before you eat or drink something else. Get tools that will increase the vibrations of water, and consider making your water wetter by using Crystal Energy Flanagan Microclusters your water.
- Eat seasonally where you can. Enjoy fermented foods. get a copy of Real Food All Year by Nishanga Bliss, or other books and videos. If you are reaching for a soda, you may be needing a pickle instead.
These are only a few ideas of the basics to preventing and maintaining a non-Diabetic state and great health in general. Do not believe for a minute that Diabetes has no cure. It's called responsibility and yes, it's a bear!
Tuesday, October 6, 2015
Justice for All
I’m beginning to think that Lady Justice is blindfolded, because the only way the public can find justice is to not look for it outside of imagination. Unsafe dental care, mandatory vaccinations, and forced cancer treatments, how can they support justice for all?
Why
can only the rich have access to safe dental care, for instance? Oh, you think the average dentist is
safe? I have seen amalgam fillings in three and four-year-olds' teeth recently, and my daughter's dentist was still putting amalgam into children’s teeth up until a few years ago. Fluoride
is in the paste used at cleanings as well as the fluoride treatments themselves. The plastic used in sealants and such is not
safe. The posts of some root canals are
made out of mercury. A holistic
biological dentist uses top rate materials as well as ozone. These dentists cost a fortune and patients
have to pay up front, their insurance may pay a little back to the patient at a
later date. Why are unsafe practices
permitted in regular dentistry? Is this
justice for all?
H.R.
2232 and SB 277 are proof of the tyrannical legislation that the powers that be
would have in place. The United States
government wants to strip parents of their medical rights over their children. They are actually mandating vaccines to be
given to children and babies when no-one has ever tested a multiple dose vaccine being
given at one time with a whole bunch of single doses. Not only that, the only legislation that I know of put into place
to limit thimerosal levels in vaccines, is AB 2943. Unfortunately, Article
9: 124172c of this law allows an exemption to the law. So
whereas parents are not permitted to exempt their children from vaccines in
some places, legislation that was put into place in order to protect those
receiving vaccinations, can be exempted by increasing thimerosal
levels. Also, let’s
point out that this law, AB 2943, is only supposed to protect pregnant women
and children under three years of age.
If your children are over three, there is no legislation of which I am aware,
to protect them against high levels of thimerosal poisoning. Further, there exists no article or section to AB 2943 stating that it must be disclosed to parents that the vile of vaccine that a child is about to receive has high thimerosal levels in it, due to an exemption. Is it justice for all when the government can
mandate heavy metal poisoning?
In
1930, Royal Rife proved that when the healthy environment of the body changes
dis-ease may follow. Likewise, he showed
how to re-establish a healthy environment as some did before him and many have
done since him. Yet, in spite of all the
evidence about cancer’s true genesis, in about 1939, the US government decided
to mandate three treatments for cancer: surgery, chemotherapy, and
radiation. Public Health and Safety Code
1707.1 ensures the same for Californians specifically, just in case someone
overlooks the federal law. This makes it difficult for someone who can assist you in balancing dis-ease in your body, specifically from advertising that this practitioner may heal your cancer. It also means that if a
seventeen-year-old researches (reads and interviews people) and decides on a
course of action to improve his or her health and rid his or her body of cancer, the government can take the
child away from his or her parents and force the patient to undergo surgery,
chemotherapy, and or radiation against the will of the whole family. Legislation is put into place to line the
pockets of pharmecuetical companies as well as to ruin the health of
citizens. Where is the justice for all
when the government gets to decide about your health decisions when they go
against yours?
If
people choose not to research and to blindly follow the advice of their
doctors, they may very well accept dental amalgam and fluoride treatments,
vaccinations to the schedule, and surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation for the
supposed treatment of cancer. Are
Americans of 2015 really willing to accept poisons to be legislated,
though? If choice for citizens is gone,
yet groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics, the California Academy of
Family Physicians, and the California Immunization Coalition are allowed to
receive exemptions to legislation meant to protect the public, where is the
justice for all in that?
The
law is missing from public record: 1707.1 http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.html/hsc_table_of_contents.html
Saturday, October 3, 2015
I’ve Created a…
You know that saying, “I’ve
created a monster,”? I’ve done that in two ways. Firstly, I created the monster in the form of
a limited belief that manifested in lack.
Secondly, my family pointed it out to me, so the monster was the saying,
because my preaching just got shoved in my face.
It’s so much smoother
when the thing created is from the limitless side, even when we place a limit
on it. Long ago, when I was a starving student (though employed fulltime), I drove home from Yo San University, saying,
“At least $10,000 has now come to me.
No-one died or was injured in order for it to do so. It just came, because it could. So be it.
It was so,” every night for only about a month.
I suppose I threw the “So be it” part in there, because it was an
affirmation for the future I wished to create.
At the same time, I wanted it in the past tense to ensure it would get
created, so I added, "It was so." I would hold my hand in my lap
palm up, feeling the pile of money as I “saw” the stack of $1,000 bills there.
One day, I went to get
the mail at the mailboxes of the fifty condos where I lived. A neighbor was also there. He said to me, “Did you hear that we are
going to get at least $10,000?” I
recognized the exact wording of my affirmation and knew it was coming. No, I hadn’t heard. He explained that the Northridge Earthquake
settlement was finally coming through after all these years and that the current
owners will split the leftovers after all the repairs had been made.
After all the repairs had
been made and after the garage doors had all been updated through the committee
vote, each homeowner received $23,000.
We really do have the choice, even with karma along side our present thinking. We can create a monster of an experience, or the inverse. What will you set out
to create?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
