This important article highlights three different problems: First, drugs and vaccines which have NOT been either studied or approved for pregnant woman are being used as if their unique biochemical and physiological needs (remember, their bodies have adapted to the unique stress of feeding and forming another being within their own bodies) and those of the baby within can be ignored because it is more convenient to forget about them and just use drugs and vaccines that are handy, or with which the doctor is familiar. Second, marketing pressures and propaganda lead doctors and their associates to use vaccines and drugs in pregnant woman and their babies EVEN THOUGH they are know to be dangerous to these woman and their babies. Third, safe, effective and well-known treatments exist for each of the conditions for which dangerous pharmaceutical treatments are widely, and unwisely, used. For example, if there were a danger from a virus like H1N1 or from urinary tract (or other) infections, the use of nano silver would eliminate it since it safely kills pathogens while leaving vital probiotics in place without danger to the fetus or mother.
Antibiotics, psychiatric medication and vaccines are three perfect examples of dangerous drugs widely, but unwisely, used in these vulnerable people: mothers and unborn babies. In the PDR (Physicians’ Desk Reference (R) ) and package inserts pertaining to such drugs, caution is urged stating that the drugs in these classes should be used in pregnant woman, and in the case of psychiatric drugs, in women of child bearing age, only where there are no other options or when the benefit overrides the risks to mother and child.
OK. Risks are supposed to outweigh benefits. But in the case of vaccines for H1N1, what benefits? The disease is mild and inconsequential despite the hype. There is no additional risk to pregnant women and their babies from H1N1 infection unless they are treated with the dangerous antiviral. None. A close investigation of the statistics, as Dr. Russell Blaylock has provided, http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/11/03/What-We-Have-Learned-About-the-Great-Swine-Flu-Pandemic.aspx, makes that clear.
What are the risks? Well, since no testing has been done on the safety of the vaccines in pregnant women and on fetuses, the risks are, as the vaccine package inserts make clear, totally unknown. ALL multidose vials of injectable H1N1 vaccine contain mercury and the risks of mercury to the fetus are well characterized and well known. Astonishingly, the FDA and CDC now say that pregnant women should expose their fetuses to the well established dangers of mercury in order to receive the “benefits” of the H1N1 vaccines without explaining how the risks of mercury have been either eliminated or overcome.
Additionally, GSK’s vaccine is adjuvanted with squalene and under an Emergency Use Authorization, the FDA now permits its store of injectable squalene to be used as an additive to the injectable vaccines in the 90,000 injection stations. Since the only way that squalene can be drawn up and mixed with the vaccine is to add it to the mercury-containing multi-does vials, and it is the multidose vials which contain mercury, this guarantees that mothers and babies will be dosed with high doses of mercury AND squalene.
Since squalene is known to cause severe disease when injected and has previously never been approved for injection in humans, there is little or nothing known about its impact on either pregnant mothers or their babies. What is known, however, is that squalene injected at the doses which are indicated in the 1998 patents for its use, which appear to be the same doses in the planned admixture with the vaccines, can also cause to cause permanent, irreversible sterility. That means that the pregnancies these woman are carrying will be their last. Will their children also be permanently and irreversibly sterile? We do not know.
Psychiatric drugs are strongly contraindicated in pregnant woman and in women who might become pregnant. Yet the United States Congress, under the influence, I presume, of the huge numbers of pharmaceutical lobbyists and their even more vast funding abilities have passed a bill which requires psychiatric “screening” to detect and drug pregnant women and new mothers with drugs to “treat” post partum depression with drugs whose impact on the fetus and nursing child can be literally cataclysmic.
This study makes it clear that antibiotics are similarly dangerous. They, like vaccines and psychiatric drugs, have been little studies in pregnant women, but what is known makes it clearly inadvisable to use any of them in pregnancy without the strongest of indications.
The article below makes it clear that drugs taken for granted by patients and doctors for safety in pregnancy should not be lightly regarded despite the general mistaken consensus that they are safe, effective and harmless. Vaccines, antibiotics, psychiatric drugs, and, indeed, all drugs require such caution and replacement by safe, effective and widely available non-pharmaceuticals for pregnant and nursing women. My own preference, of course, as a physician who has practiced drug-free medicine and psychiatry for the best part of 40 years, is that all drugs, except those in the ER, should be so replaced.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org
www.GlobalHealthFreedom.org
Valley of the Moon(TM) Eco Demonstration Project
www.NaturalSolutionsFoundation.org
Valley of the Moon(TM) Coffee – Freedom’s Coffee: GMO-Free, Pesticide-Free, Supporting Health Freedom!
www.ValleyoftheMoonCoffee.org
Natural Solutions Virtual Stores
www.Organics4U.org
www.NaturalSolutionsMarketPlace.org
Common antibiotics tied to birth defects
Study: Drugs to treat urinary infections could cause heart, brain problems
Mon., Nov . 2, 2009
CHICAGO – Researchers studying antibiotics in pregnancy have found a surprising link between common drugs used to treat urinary infections with birth defectshttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2.gif. Reassuringly, the most-used antibiotics in early pregnancy — penicillins — appear to be the safest.
Bacterial infections themselves can cause problems for the fetus if left unchecked, experts said, so pregnant women shouldn’t avoid antibiotics entirely. Instead, women should discuss antibiotics choices with their doctors.
The new study is the first large analysis of antibiotic use in pregnancy. It found that mothers of babies with birth defects were more likely than mothers with healthy babies to report taking two types of antibiotics during pregnancy: sulfa drugs (brand names include Thiosulfil Forte and Bactrim) and urinary germicides called nitrofurantoins (brand names include Furadantin and Macrobid).
It was the first time an association had been seen between urinary tract treatments and birth defects, said lead author Krista Crider, a geneticist with the Centers for Disease Control and Preventionhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2.gif, which funded the research. “Additional studies are going to need to be done to confirm these findings.”
Before rigorous safety testing
Used for many decades, the antibiotics in question predate the Food and Drug Administration and its requirements for rigorous safety testing. The FDAhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2.gif now grades all drugs for safety to the fetus based on available research, but rigorous studies are so lacking in many cases, that no antibiotics get the highest grade of “A.”
Sulfa drugs are the oldest antibiotics and some animal studies have found harm during pregnancy. Nitrofurantoins previously have been viewed by doctors as safe to treat urinary tract infections during pregnancy.
The study, appearing in November’s Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, may cause doctors to change the drugs they choose to treat pregnant women with infections. The findings were released Monday.
Dr. Susan Mehnert-Kay, a family practice doctor in Tulsa, Okla., who has written about diagnosing and managing urinary tract infections, said the research is “very interesting” and would cause her to reconsider antibiotic choices in early pregnancy.
The study is important because it looked at drugs that have been used for decades without large studies of their safety in pregnant women, said Dr. Michael Katz of the March of Dimes.
“Some physicians are not as attuned to this as they ought to be, so patients have the right to ask questions,” Katz said.
The researchers analyzed data from more than 13,000 mothers whose infants had birth defects and nearly 5,000 women who lived in the same regions with healthy babies.
The women were interviewed by phone from six weeks to two years after their pregnancies. Those who remembered taking antibiotics during the month before conception through the first three months of pregnancy were identified as exposed to antibiotics.
The women’s memories could have been faulty, a substantial weakness of the study, which the authors acknowledged. About one-third of the women who took antibiotics couldn’t remember the specific type of drug they took.
It’s also unclear whether the birth defects were caused by the drugs or by the underlying infections being treated, Crider said.
Birth defects linked to sulfa drugs included rare brain and heart problems, and shortened limbs. Those linked to nitrofurantoins included heart problems and cleft palate. The drugs seemed to double or triple the risk, depending on the defect.
“These defects are rare. Even with a threefold increase in risk, the risk for the individual is still quite low,” Crider said.
Katz of the March of Dimes said anencephaly, a fatal brain problem linked to sulfas, affects about 1 in 10,000 births in the United States. Cleft palate occurs about 20 per 10,000 births.
Crider said the findings give doctors another opportunity to caution against overuse of antibiotics. Viral illnesses like colds and flus shouldn’t be treated with antibiotics, she said.
Women in 10 states, including California, Texas and New York, were interviewed as part of the National Birth Defects Prevention Study.
The FDA recommends that pregnant women discuss medications with their doctors, said FDA spokeswoman Sandy Walsh. The agency has proposed changes to prescription drug labeling that would require more complete information for women of childbearing age, pregnant women and those who breastfeed, Walsh said.
http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Sources/Art/APTRANS.gif
