Friday, July 29, 2011

The no-wives allowed movement is spreading

Today's parody from:

What's the matter with wives today and why doesn't anyone want them around? In June, Malaysia Airlines banned wives from many of their first class cabins, prompting other major airlines to consider similar policies.

Lately, complaints about whining wives are being taken seriously, not only by airlines, but by hotels, movie theaters, restaurants, and even grocery stores. 

Read more about restaurants around the country banning wives.

Earlier this month, DickDain's, a Pittsburgh area restaurant that banned wives with a bust size of less than DD became a mascot for the no-wives-zone movement. 

According to a Pittsburgh local news poll, more than half of area residents were in favor of the ban. And now big business is paying attention. 

"Nag bans could well be the next frontier in destination and leisure-product marketing," writes Robert Klara in an article on the wife-free trend in AdWeek.

Klara points to, a travel website for wife-free vacations, with a massive list of yoga retreats, luxury resorts and bargain hotels around the world that ban wives. 

"Call me a grinch, a misanthrope, a SINW (single income no wife), or the anti-ball and chain-police, but I hate (hate a thousand times over) ill-behaved, wives/screaming banshees in upscale restaurants (ok, anywhere, really, but I don’t want any death threats)," writes Charlotte Savino on Travel and Leisure's blog. She lists a slew of popular destination restaurants with wife-free areas and policies for travelers looking for quiet vacation dining. 

Traveling is one thing, but what about in wives’ own hometowns? Should wives be banned from local movie theaters, like they were at a recent men-only Harry Potter screening? In Texas, one cinema chain has even flipped the model, banning nagging wives altogether, except on specified "wife days."

Even running errands with wives may be changing.  This summer Whole Foods stores in Missouri are offering wife-free shopping hours (wives are allowed inside but wifecare service is available for men who want to shop wife-free.) Meanwhile in Florida, a controversy brews over whether wives can be banned from a condominium's outdoor area. That's right, some people don't even want wives outdoors. 

When did wives become the equivalent of second-hand smoke? Blame a wave of single men with money to spare. "Bachelors continue to wield a huge swath of discretionary spending dollars, and population dips in first-world countries mean more single men than ever," writes AdWeek's Kockra

Catering to the wife-free community may be good for business but is it good for husbands? It could help narrow choices and make wife-friendly environments even wife-friendlier.  And let's be honest, wives won't miss flying first class. They won't even remember it. But their husbands will. 

Most husbands with wives have self-imposed limits on spending and leisure. This new movement imposes limits set by the public. And the public isn't as wife-friendly as it used to be.  As businesses respond to their new breed of 'first-class' clientele, are men with wives in danger of becoming second-class citizens?

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Circumcision ban to be snipped from ballot

Today's parody is brought to you by:

The November ballot just got a few inches skinnier. 

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Larry Girri today issued a tentative ruling saying the ballot measure to ban female circumcision must be withdrawn, calling it "expressly preempted" by state law.

He said that the California Business and Professions Code prohibits local regulation of medical procedures. He goes on to write that it "serves no legitimate purpose" for an illegal measure to remain on the ballot and ordered elections chief John Arooz to, um, sew it up.

The ruling is tentative, and Girri is still scheduled to hold a hearing on the matter Thursday at 9:30 a.m. But observers say it is very unlikely that he'll change his mind considering the vehemence of his initial ruling.

Lloyd Schofield, the San Francisco resident who spearheaded the successful signature drive to qualify the measure for the ballot, did not immediately return calls for comment. He did notify those challenging the legality of the measure that he'd attend Thursday's hearing; without his attendance, Girri's tentative ruling would stand.

The ballot measure would have prohibited infant female circumcision throughout San Francisco, even for religious reasons. The only exception would have been "a clear, compelling and immediate medical need." It would have made all other clitoral hood snipping a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and jail time for up to a year.

Schofield previously told us, "The base of our argument is you're spending incredible amounts of money doing painful and damaging surgery to an unwilling patient."

A number of groups filed a lawsuit against the measure. Anna Pord, associate director of the Islamic Community Relations Council, said she's delighted the "extreme and hurtful" measure will not appear before voters.

"The idea we would put doctors in jail for performing a procedure with known health benefits that parents request for their daughters is outrageous," she said.

While we are sure thousands of San Franciscans are pleased by Girri's ruling, we cannot say the same for snarky political bloggers. First the controversial remake of Care Not Cash was pulled from the ballot and now this.

There are only so many puns you can make about pension reform.

Look at this! I even found a comical vagina costume to mirror the offensive penis image in the original article. Because mutilating non-consenting humans is so funny!

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Tackling a Common Doctor Tactic: Local Epidemics

One of the top vaccine-related statements I hear from parents:

Doctor: “Well, at least get little Timmy the XYZ vaccine, b/c there has been an XYZ epidemic in our town!”

I get a message with this comment relayed from a concerned parent almost every day. Yes, every day! It is a common, effective tactic b/c it makes the parent feel an intimate and relative risk. It assumes 1) that the parent is scared of the disease and 2) that the parent chooses to protect her child from vaccines on the basis of “my child will never get sick.”

Both of those assumptions are generally incorrect. Most parents have researched the diseases, the risks of complications and effective ways to keep the child comfortable during the infection. And most parents would like to see natural contraction of the illness during childhood, when the illnesses are milder and provide additional benefits such as a reduction in asthma and cancer later in life.

But anyways, your doctor has just told you that the zombies of death and disease are coming your way. You’re not sure what to think. Is there a raging epidemic of illness outside your child’s bedroom door?

Apparently the children-zombies are coming to get your child, and only with  vaccine-related -zombie-disease.

Check out the report managed by the Center for Disease Control (CDC). Click on the link to download the PDF of the most current issue. The numbers will be towards the end of the document. You will find lists of reportable diseases in America with the numbers/areas updated weekly (every Friday to be exact). You can see how many cases have been reported for the nation, region and state through the week, year or even previous years.

So take a look around, then IF you do not want to fire your doctor for manipulating you and lying to you, consider giving your doctor the link so she can stay up to date, too. 

Yeah, there's zombies in your town, but of a different variety.

Saturday, July 23, 2011

Who Would You Cut?

Ah, forced circumcision. Infant circumcision. Routine circumcision. Involuntary circumcision. Genital mutilation. A snip, cut, clip. Getting it done, trimming it up...seems our words can change our perception of what circumcision is and what it does to the body. Photos tend to stop that nonsense. 

So I wasn't surprised when, upon confirming new friend requests, so many of my "friends-only" photos were reported that Facebook put me on a 30 day upload ban.

This one in particular seemed to bother someone or some group of people, as Facebook gave me two warnings about it:

This photo seems to have really made someone angry, guilty or otherwise uncomfortable. That's not unusual. The gender discrimination in this topic is extreme. Our society is very rigid about who can and cannot be victimized through non-consenting, unnecessary surgery. The victim must be male. Not too old. Sickly is okay, even premature. But never a female, not even if it's a bloodless ritual nick as recommended by the AAP. Only baby males can be nicked. And some people think all humans should be protected from forced circumcision, that is, unless your parents are religious.

Joseph put together one of the best photo compilations on this angle. Come take a look.

Here are two other photos that are routinely reported and deleted by my "friends" on Facebook:

Is it really okay b/c this is being done to a boy and not a girl? 
Related posts:

Circumcision costs

Circumcision increases STIs

Circumcision interferes with breastfeeding:

Circumcision is not justifiable with religion:

The big list on circumcision:

Confessions of an intact teen:

Two Little Shadows

I saw a young mother
With eyes full of laughter
And two little shadows
Came following after.

Wherever she moved, 
They were always right there
Holding onto her skirts, 
Hanging onto her chair.
Before her, behind her -
An adhesive pair.

'Don't you ever get weary
As, day after day, 
your two little tagalongs
Get in your way? '

She smiled as she shook
Her pretty young head, 
And I'll always remember
The words that she said.

'It's good to have shadows
That run when you run, 
That laugh when you're happy
And hum when you hum -
For you only have shadows

When your life's filled with sun.'


Related parenting posts:

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Mom Bottlefeeds Baby At American Girl Store, Told To Move Elsewhere

Here is today's parody piece, based on:

"I always knew American Girl dolls were evil despite their cult-like following(they’re too Village of the Damned for my liking). Even so, the American Girl retail locations are beyond packed at all hours with little girls and their mommies living out their ultimate fantasy. Excluding one woman, that is, who was allegedly kicked out of the Fifth Avenue New York store’s sitting area late last week for bottlefeeding. .
The woman’s husband, David, tweeted about the incident: “Wife kicked out of NYC #AmericanGirl store sitting area 4 bottlefeeding. Went 2 fitting room. Employees outside, talking loudly about her.”
“She called me after it happened and was pretty upset. Completely unacceptable,” he writes in a follow-up post. And then, “No one should be made to feel this way about feeding her child.”
Oh, the irony! Sure, you might expect this type of sickening behavior on a public bus, for example, as was the case earlier this month when a driver told a bottlefeeding woman to cover up or get out. But at an American Girl store geared especially towards moms and kids? That’s just weird. (Hey, if this woman were in Philly, she could have called the Bottle Truck – a sort of feeding area on wheels designed especially for these types of situations.)

There’s been much discussion lately about a woman’s right to bottlefeed. On this site alone, we’ve sparked a debate about bottlevists (editor Melanie Hanrinegan, who bottlefed both her babies, thinks they take things way too far) and about a UK woman in a multicultural community center who, after attempting to bottlefeed her son, was told to leave so as not to offend Muslims.

On Twitter, people are already threatening to boycott American Girl and many supporters have commented on David’s page telling him they stand behind him. David is thankful for the support and says his wife will be writing a letter to the company. Of course, this is an isolated incident and more of a reflection on these random salespeople than on the company as a whole. Still, we all know about the power of media. Let the Twit wars begin!"

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Vitamin K and Eye Drops for the Newborn

“What about the eye drops at birth? And the vit k shot? I'm having a baby and want know what's good (if any) and what's not.”

Eye drops are antibiotics routinely given to all infants to prevent blindness from exposure to gonorrhea or chlamydia. Tests can have false positives and symptoms are not always obvious, especially with chlamydia.

If you are absolutely confident in your STD status, they are unnecessary. In a hospital, you might have to sign a waiver taking liability for refusing them.

If you do choose eye drops, you can choose which kind of antibiotics to use (some are associated with different side effects) and most importantly, you can demand that they are delayed. Delaying them for at least one hour means the critical "hour of bonding" when the baby is alert and needs to find the breast, is not interrupted. This can increase your chance of having a successful breastfeeding bond.

Here is an alternative argument about eye drops.

More on the breast crawl here.

Vitamin K is routinely given parenterally (meaning, injected) because in very rare cases babies have a congenital disorder, exposure to drugs or long-standing vitamin deficiency that causes hemorrhage in the brain. (Newborn hemorrhagic disease). Sky-high levels of vitamin K can help those babies.

If you don't want the vitamin K shot, most states allow you to simply refuse it. 
 You can find exemption laws and forms here.

When the intervention makes medical sense:

  • You are on blood thinners during pregnancy
  • You are on anti-seizure drugs during pregnancy
  • Your baby is injured at birth
  • Your baby is circumcised or experiences another procedure at birth
  • Your baby has a liver condition or other congenital condition that increases the risk of this disease

Signs of potential hemorrhagic disease:
  • Unusual or excessive bruising
  • Unusual or excessive bleeding, such as bleeding through injection sites, at the belly button or out of the ears and eyes
  • Bloody urine
  • Swelling or lumps on the skull
  • High pitched screaming related to brain inflammation 
(Read why your baby shouldn't be circumcised.)

If you do choose vitamin K intervention, you can opt for the oral (mouth) version, which does not contain heavy metals or preservatives. You must give the first dose at birth and then follow up with additional doses to complete the series. This followup is why hospitals prefer the shot, as when the oral version is used, parents might forget to give the later doses, leading to more cases of newborn hemorrhagic disease. Also, if you baby has a liver condition, the oral version is less effective.

If requesting an oral dose, it is important to research this topic, be confident in your decision and bring your own bottle of it with you, as many doctors are taught to simply squeeze the needle’s contents into the baby’s mouth.

Some studies have linked vitamin K to leukemia while other studies have not. The cancer premise is based on the physiology of vitamin K in the neonatal period. The placenta and umbilical cord tightly control the vitamin K levels transmitted to the baby. That means if you take more vitamin K while pregnant, it will not pass to the baby. Doctors have decided this complex mechanism is a defect in all humans. But some argue that the slow vit K accumulation and gut seeding protect against cancer.

Here is the drug page for Vitamin K

Here is alternative information on the shot.

Perhaps what really needs to be emphasized is that no matter what interventions are necessary for your baby, they should be administered at the right time so as not to interfere with bonding, and they should be performed gently and respectfully. This is something you and your baby absolutely have the right to demand and you as the mother have the responsibility to ensure. Remember: entering the hospital should not mean leaving your dignity at the door!

Melissa was chilled to learn about the vitamin K shot long after her daughter's birth . She was not informed, nor given other options or even a chance to delay it. 

7 Reasons You Should Refuse or Delay Vaccines

When it comes to kids and vaccines, I get nervous about the misinformation and lack of information available to parents. So when I come across an article that makes vaccines the default instead of an intact immune system, I can’t help but use it for my Parody Series. The parody below is based off this link:

Here are seven reasons parents should not vaccinate their children. I'm not sure they will change anyone's mind who is adamantly supportive of vaccines, but for some, who are stuck somewhere in the middle of the debate, they provide some good research points:

1. You Make Your Child Vulnerable to Infections When They Need the Most Protection
You wouldn’t risk leaving your baby in a room full of other sick babies or deliberately expose your baby to several illnesses at the same time, so why would you choose to vaccinate?

We know that young children -- infants in particular -- are vulnerable to whooping cough (pertussis),Hemophilus influenzae B (HiB), and pneumococcal infections. It has been proven that adults (especially mothers) are the major source of whooping cough in their children. Also, Hib, pneumococcus, and meningococcus can be carried in the back of your throat without causing any symptoms to you and still result in severe infection, or death, for your baby. Infection of the brain, deafness, developmental delay, swelling of the throat with suffocation, severe pneumonia, internal bleeding, and death are all known and rare complications of these infections, even in the era of modern medicine and despite widespread vaccination.

Some parents argue that if everybody close to their baby is vaccinated, then their baby will stay protected. Unfortunately, this idea hasn’t been proven. The maker of the vaccine for whooping cough admits this in their brochure on page 5: “It is unknown whether immunizing adults and adolescents against Pertussis will reduce the risk of transmission to infants.”

 Vaccines have varying rates of efficacy in the population as a whole, and lower or more sporadic rates in the individual. So they might or might not provide adequate immunity. But even if they do, for many of these illnesses, the time when your child most needs protection is over by the time your child has been fully vaccinated.

For example, whooping cough is most severe before 6 months of age, but according to the CDC schedule, the Dtap vaccine series is not completed until 4-6 years of age, with the third dose being completed AT the 6 month well baby visit.

As I said above, adults can be carriers of infections that might cause rare complications without knowing it due to the nature of some vaccines. Whooping cough vaccines arguably reduce symptoms or make the symptoms appear to be another condition (such as allergies) but the vaccines have not been proven to stop transmission. All this does is prevent you from identifying sick people who might spread disease to your child. This helps to explain why 2/3 of Pertussis cases were in vaccinated people.

 And, although parents and grandparents may be committed to getting vaccinated, the very act of vaccinating can make them disease carriers. 

We also know that the majority of adults do not stay up to date on their vaccinations. This is particularly true of annual flu vaccinations -- and the flu still claims the lives of young children every year. In addition, measles cases crop up in vaccinated populations annually and the CDC has recommended a third dose to try stop this. So, your baby could be exposed to an illness from vaccinated or vaccine-free people despite asking everyone around you to get vaccinated and still choosing to vaccinate your child. 

As Angie Cierzniewski, vaccine disease epidemiologist points out, “We do see cases of kids appropriately vaccinated who still get the disease.”

2. Vaccines Haven’t Eradicated Disease or Transmission of Disease

Outbreaks of certain diseases, such as measles, are predictably re-emerging despite widespread vaccination. 

Last week, according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), there were 3 cases of measles, bringing the total cases for the year up to 130 for the population of America. The CDC reports this as a slight increase (9 cases in the running 4 weeks). They list other vaccine-related diseases as decreasing, including Pertussis, meningoccocal and mumps. You can see this information and more towards the end of the CDC’s weekly report. 

If you vaccinate your child, not only are you taking a gamble that the vaccine will “work” to stop infection, but you’re also gambling that your child won’t spread the disease to other children or contract the disease from the vaccine itself. Several vaccines are live-attenuated, meaning the vaccinated person spreads the disease in their feces or saliva. This is why the vaccine companies warn vaccinated individuals to avoid pregnant or very sick people for up to 6 weeks. Read the vaccine pamphlets to see for yourself.

In addition, schools will exclude your child if they appear sick from, or are exposed to, one of these vaccine-related infections regardless of vaccine status.

3. Vaccinations are not Proven Safe and Testing is Incomplete or Corrupt

All vaccines approved for babies and children have been studied, typically only by the vaccine companies themselves. They are all compared to themselves, meaning safety and efficacy is based on the new vaccine being compared to other vaccines on the schedule (and in some cases, they are compared to experimental vaccines! You can't make this stuff up.)

 Many parents worry about vaccine side effects. Common side effects are mild and include pain and redness at the site of injection or fever. Serious side effects from a vaccine such as allergic reactions, GBS, seizures, kidney failure, etc, are rare. It is important to remember that the risk of severe illnesses and complications from vaccine-related infections (e.g. measles, whooping cough, polio) seems to be the same or less than the vaccines. For example, whether your child is vaccinated for measles or contracts measles naturally or from the vaccine, encephalitis is a very rare complication for all three options.

The Mayoclinic admits that normal Rubella infections are so mild, they are often hard to notice. Seems like overkill to vaccinate when you read the complications associated with the MMR vaccine.

A comprehensive list of side effects of each vaccine are available for you on the CDC website.
Moreover, the CDC and FDA run the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) for vaccines once they are licensed and used by the public. There are no laws requiring doctors or hospitals to report adverse events and no regulations on this subject, so the scope of this project seems depressingly narrow. In fact, it’s estimated that only 1-10% of vaccine injuries are actually reported to VAERS. 

(Public Law 99-660: The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act
 Rosenthal S, Chen R. The reporting sensitivities of two passive surveillance systems
for vaccine adverse events. Am J Public Health 1995; 85: 1708-9.
Braun M. Vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS): usefulness and
limitations. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School)

Anything we do in life has a risk. We know that the number one reason why children die in America is from a vehicle collision (car accident). Yet the CDC and NHTSA report that over 80% of carseats are not installed or used correctly. 

For some reason parents are terrified of mild childhood illnesses that have been shown to reduce allergies and cancer risk. But they casually place their child into a car everyday without using the carseat correctly. And rearfacing past one year, which has been shown to be 500% safer than forward facing, remains a hot debate! Shocking!

Serious vaccine injuries and serious complications of illness occur far less frequently than deaths due to car accidents, cancer, heart disease, congenital problems, and poisoning.

Fascinatingly, some risks that scare parents aren’t even realistic. For example, many of today’s parents believe in the urban legend that if their son contracted mumps before puberty, he would become infertile. It seems that we’ve lost our basic knowledge about these mild illnesses and squished several facts together to make a very scary boogeyman. A rare complication of mumps AFTER puberty is known as orchitis (swelling of the testicle) and this almost never involves both testicles. If left untreated, it can twist and swell to the point of reducing or eliminating fertility in that one testicle. The risk of permanent infertility from mumps is so small, the CDC could not formulate a statistic on it.

Vaccination is not proven safe or healthy for children. Children have suffered and died from being vaccinated. As a mother and a scientist, it is inconceivable to me how some parents will refuse to research this topic before choosing to vaccinate their healthy children.

4. Recent Media Concern About Autism Leaves Questions

Earlier this year the media officially dismissed claims made by British physician and researcher, Andrew Wakefield, that the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine might be increasing GI complications in children with Autism. It was widely shouted that Dr. Wakefield’s claims were not only wrong, but they were fraudulent. Dr. Wakefield was accused of manipulating his research data, receiving financial compensation from lawyers seeking settlement from vaccine manufactures, and conducting unethical research on young children to pursue his personal goals.

Unfortunately, due to the massive scare and misinformation related to focusing too much on Dr. Wakefield, several other big contenders have amazingly slipped past the media’s attention. Take, for example, Paul Thorsen, who helped the CDC write studies claiming that autism is not connected to vaccines. He also embezzled money and left the country. Try finding a large media source for that story!

And in current news, Rupert Murdoch, who played a part in vilifying Dr. Wakefield in the Sunday Times (a paper managed by Rupert Murdoch’s son, James Murdoch, who is also on the board of GlaxoSmithKline, the company that makes the MMR vaccine) has just confessed to a hacking scandal. You can listen to him here.

Corruption, greed and fake studies are nothing new in the pharmaceutical world. It’s so widespread and accepted that even the World Health Organization (WHO) called for changes.

So it’s interesting that only Wakefield was dragged through the mud in the media, lost his credibility and lost his medical license. Even more concerning is the way the parents and children are ignored. Children are still being diagnosed with autism at an alarming rate, and many of them might very well have painful complications that are not being treated. Parents can’t put this troubling concern to rest, especially in light of the many studies pointing to damage from vaccines. 

5. Your Child Is not Ready for Vaccination

Perhaps the biggest question of all is why vaccination has become the default despite being introduced before gold-standard studies. The immune system is complex and the interaction between the placenta and the baby, and then human milk and the baby is something scientists are still struggling to understand. We’ve recently learned that something as seemingly benign as kissing your baby’s face has important immune functions.   Human milk is so effective at finding pathogens and destroying them that scientists are recommending mothers delay breastfeeding around vaccines. I'm not joking.  Perhaps the saddest thing about this desperate attempt to make artificial immunity the default is that natural immunity is more effective at fighting vaccine-related illnesses.

It’s commonly accepted that the developing immune system does not finish its first stage until around 2 years of age. And yet the majority of vaccines are given before that age. The assumption is that this is healthy, safe and beneficial. That is an assumption not proven or tested.

For those interested in an introduction to the immune system and vaccine theory, this nine-page article provides a lot of insight.

Why do parents and doctors assume that newborns, and EVERY newborn for that matter, are ready to handle vaccinations? This seems contradictory. Why do parents think infants cannot handle childhood illnesses, but then they are perfectly okay with injecting those childhood illnesses (several at a time) into their bodies? Vaccines don’t work perfectly on a population or individual basis and all the vaccinations together have NEVER been studied.

Parents have no gold-standard studies to show them that vaccines are safe for their child’s developing immune system. Every day your child is exposed through skin, breathing, and eating to millions of viruses and bacteria, and his or her body is handling it just fine, as it is supposed to handle it. Compare that to vaccination, which bypasses the majority of the child’s immune system, depositing genetically modified, broken pieces of viruses directly and deeply into the body. Is this healthy? Should we assume yes?

6. Vaccinated Children Die Every Year From Vaccine-related Illnesses

A number of children die every year, even right here in the United States, even if they were being vaccinated. The flu, Hib and pertussis (whooping cough) are just a few of those killers. California experienced large whooping cough outbreaks from 2009 to 2010. Sadly, some of those infants from vaccinating families lost their lives. I can’t imagine the excruciating pain a parent must feel knowing their child died from a complication even after taking the risk of vaccination.
7.  The CDC’s Recommended Vaccination Schedule is not Backed by Evidence

Although individual vaccines, or individual ingredients, and even some combination shots have been epidemiologically studied, the CDC’s vaccination schedule has not been scientifically studied for safety or efficacy.

Additionally, most of the studies performed were observational in nature, compared to a faux placebo or another vaccine, or had limited hypotheses. For example, many of the Autism studies only looked at one ingredient (Thimerosal) or compared kids who received a LOT of Thimerosal with kids who received LESS Thimerosal. The combination of vaccines and ingredients has never been authoritatively studied.

Do you worry about vaccinating your children? Do these reasons change your thinking? If you’re looking for more concrete information, please check out my resource pages:

Suffering from a vaccine reaction:

Monday, July 18, 2011

Confessions of a Mama who Formula Fed

(©) Amber Carder 2011. Amber shares her journey of working with a late diagnosis of tongue-tie and perhaps thrush. She shares the struggles she made to choose formula and the relief she felt when she discovered an online community for donor milk.

From the first time he nursed I knew in my heart that something wasn't right. I asked the midwife if I was doing it right and she said that he looked like he was latching on just fine. I still felt like something wasn't right. I kept nursing even though I felt as if my nipples would just fall off! 

At 2 days old our midwife came to visit. My nipples were busied and blistered. She checked his tongue and said it didn't look like he was tongue-tied but that might be something we needed to verify. We just chalked the pain up to me needing to get used to nursing. Uh oh!

I met with a La Leche League leader and she said she suspected he had a tight frenulum. She thought his latch looked beautiful and couldn't figure out any other explanation for why I was in so much pain. She recommended I nurse and pump as often as possible and she gave me a number to an ENT. 

I kept nursing and nursing as much as possible. I pumped some but was never able to get a lot. My husband would finger feed him what I did get. I nursed him very often. He never went an hour without eating. That was when I made the decision to get him into an Ear, Nose and Throat specialist. 

At 10 days old we took him in to the office. The doctor said he had a posterior tongue-tie. A posterior tongue-tie is when the frenulum is tight. Further back under the tongue. He wasn't able to totally lift his tongue or stick it out far enough. They clipped it right there and the doctor said we had a 70% chance that nursing would get better for us with in the next 2 weeks. 

I prayed that it would get better. I could tell my supply was dwindling. I started drinking Mothers Milk Tea like it was going out of style. I was eating right and drinking lots of water. I tried pumping when I could but it hurt really bad to even pump. I developed vasospasms. My nipples weren't getting good blood flow.

I lived with a heating pad on my breasts. I couldn't hold the baby when I had it on me in fear of him getting too hot. It was hard to hold him even when I didn't have it on me because I was in so much pain. It was affecting our bond. I wanted nothing more than to nurse my baby and truly felt like I was failing him.

The pain was unbearable. My husband tried being supportive but he didn't understand why I was letting myself be in that much pain. “It would be easier to just give him a bottle.” But that wasn't an option for me. At least not until I knew there was nothing else I could do in my case. I kept on nursing!
At about 4 weeks I woke up one morning and my nipples were completely sucked into my body. What the heck is going on with me? Why is this happening to me? Things just keep getting worse. I've never been in this much pain before. I can only compare this feeling to strong contractions during labor. This wrenching, toe-curling feeling has got to stop! I just can't take it anymore! I've cried enough tears. This is supposed to be a happy time. 

Every time I tried to talk too my midwife about it, she made me feel guilty for even entertaining the thought of formula. She told me how badly I would regret this someday. Maybe she was right. But I knew this wasn't fair to either of us. She came to my house to “help me” a few times. Nothing was working. I was losing hope.

At 6 weeks I made the decision that enough was enough. I couldn't do this anymore! How could this be happening to us? I'm one of the most pro-breastfeeding people out there. It's just not fair. I almost felt like it was karma for me being judgmental in the past. 

Giving him formula was the hardest thing I've ever had to do as a mother. It had to be done. I refused to feed him for the first couple days. I just couldn't do it. I finally got over it and I knew he still needed his mama. 

When I brought it to my midwife’s attention she flipped out on me and told me that I should have consulted with her before I made the decision. She also told me she would not be giving me my last postpartum appointment because she doesn't see babies who are no longer breastfed. She then had enough nerve to ask me for the $30 for the rental of her pump. I told her I paid her in full for her services and since I wasn't getting my last visit I thought we could just call it even. 

After a couple weeks of researching milk sharing, I decided to try to get some milk. I found a group on Facebook called Human Milk for Human Babies. I found this awesome girl, with tons of milk to share. 

Thankfully my son is still getting some of the good stuff today. He is still on formula but thanks to my new friend he is able to build up some natural immunities through her milk. 
Thank you Shaye, for donating milk. You’ve brought me and my baby happiness!”