Showing posts with label children's health. Show all posts
Showing posts with label children's health. Show all posts

Sunday, June 22, 2014

Looking Back: Sarah Palin as McCain’s VP – 2008 OpEd

Tripp and Uncle Trig

Tripp Palin Johnston and His Uncle Trig Palin

Washington Times: Amid the speculation regarding John McCain’s choice to complete his presidential ticket, I offer my unsolicited suggestion for his vice president: the first woman — and youngest — governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin, who is an unstereotypical and effective Republican.

During her first year in office, as reported by the Associated Press on May 10, she “distanced herself from the old guard, powerful members of the state GOP (and) stood up to the oil interests that hold great power in Alaska, and with bipartisan support in the statehouse, she won a tax increase on the oil companies’ profits.” Last December, this mother of four children, Mrs. Palin, four months’ pregnant, found she was going to have a child with Down syndrome — a condition characterized by moderate-to-severe mental retardation. A school friend of one of my sons had Down syndrome; I have also known functioning adults with the extra chromosomes of that syndrome.

However, as a longtime reporter on disability rights, I have discovered that many fetuses so diagnosed have been aborted by parents who have been advised by their doctors to end the pregnancies because of the future “imperfect quality of life” of such children.

Mrs. Palin’s first reaction to the diagnosis was to research the facts about the condition, since, as she said, “I’ve never had problems with my other pregnancies.” As a result, she and her husband, Todd, never had any doubt they would have the child.

“We’ve both been very vocal about being pro-life,” she told the Associated Press. “We understand that every innocent life has wonderful potential.” In an age when DNA and other genetic-selection tests increasingly determine who is “fit” to join us human beings, we are witnessing the debate between sanctity of life vs. quality of life being more often decided in favor of death. This is a result welcomed by internationally-influential bioethicist Peter Singer. He is now a celebrated Princeton University professor, who, in July 1983, wrote in Pediatrics, the official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics: “If we compare a severely defective human infant with a nonhuman animal, a dog or pig, for example, we will often find the nonhuman to have superior capacities, both actual and potential, for rationality, self-consciousness, communication, and anything else that can plausibly be considered morally significant.” And there are bioethicists who point to the continuing costs of rearing a “defective infant.”

By inspirational contrast, Mrs. Palin, says of her new son, Trig: “I’m looking at him right now, and I see perfection. Yeah, he has an extra chromosome. I keep thinking, in our world, what is normal and what is perfect?” Three days after she gave birth, Mrs. Palin was back in her Anchorage office with her husband and Trig. “I can think of so many male candidates,” she tells the AP, “who watched families grow while they were in office. There is no reason to believe a woman can’t do it with a growing family. My baby will not be at all or in any sense neglected.” Says the governor of Alaska: “I will not shirk my duties.” Taking her stand for life as a holder of high political office is all the more valuable in the face of the termination of fetal lives as not worth continuing before they can speak for themselves. Mrs. Palin’s stand also puts a searching light on the growing “futility” doctrine in hospitals which is affecting people of all ages.

Nancy Valko, a medical ethicist and intensive-care nurse I consult on these lives-worth-living debates, has emphasized that “with the rise of the modern bioethics movement, life is no longer assumed to have the intrinsic value it once did, and ‘quality of life’ has become the overriding consideration.” Because of Mrs. Palin’s reputation as a maverick, and her initial reduction of state spending (including pork-barrel spending), life-affirming Palin connects with voters. For these reasons, she has been mentioned as a possible vice presidential running mate for Mr. McCain.

She would be a decided asset: an independent Republican governor, a woman, a defender of life against the creeping culture of death and a fresh face in national politics. She was described in “the Almanac of National Politics” as “an avid hunter and fisher with a killer smile who wears designer glasses and heels, and hair like modern sculpture.” Moreover, I doubt that she would engage in such campaigning, as Sen. McCain’s strongly implying that a Hamas terrorist saying he would like Barack Obama to be president thereby damages Mr. McCain’s opponent (though Mr. Obama has totally condemned Hamas). Still unknown is whether Mrs. Palin would be as flip-flopping as Mr. McCain on the Bush torture policy that has so blighted our reputation in the world. But we would find out: If chosen as his running mate, she would create more interest in this already largely scripted presidential campaign.

And her presence could highlight Mr. Obama’s extremist abortion views on whether certain lives are worth living — even a child born after a botched abortion.  

Governor Palin: An Extra Chromosome of Love

trig(palin_3

Trig Palin Age 3 

Gov. Palin: Trig is getting a buddy!

Thursday, June 19, 2014

#NoKidHungry Text 877-877 to find meals near you #SummerMeals

If you know, or think you know, any family with hungry children (18 and under), find a summer meal program near home.

And please pass it on…

#NoKidHungry Text 877-877 to find meals near you #SummerMeals

Also, if you would like to donate:  NoKidHungry.org 

Thursday, August 29, 2013

5-year-old boy will receive medical marijuana to treat seizures

MarijuanaRx

Associated Press: An Arizona family plans to give medical marijuana to their 5-year-old son to treat his seizures caused by a genetic brain defect.

Zander Welton had his first seizure when he was 9 months old and now has them weekly.

His parents, who live in Mesa, say the cortical dysplasia, coupled with autism, keeps Zander from any real form of communication. He squeals and grunts, and on occasion, will bring them a cup to indicate that he’s thirsty, but otherwise doesn’t use hand gestures or form words.

After hearing about some disabled kids thriving thanks to medical marijuana, Jacob and Jennifer Welton have started the process of making Zander a legal cardholder.

The Weltons hope to start giving their son the marijuana oil drops by next week, using a syringe to pinpoint the exact dosage that works.

“If this finally works for Zander and I finally get to meet who he is, that would be amazing.

Because I don’t know who he is. He’s just a little boy that’s trapped in this craziness,” Jennifer Welton told Phoenix TV station KNXV.

The Weltons have two other sons and Zander is the second oldest. He’s undergone two brain surgeries, a third surgery for shock therapy and has been administered a series of trial and error prescription drugs.

His latest prescription made minor improvements with his seizures, but Jennifer Welton said the medication made her son more combative.

Zander’s mobility also is limited and he often reverts back to crawling after a bad seizure.

For medical marijuana treatments, the Weltons need two doctors to sign off on it. The caregiver also needs to be approved for a medical marijuana caregiver’s card and that person has to live with the recipient.

The couple connected with a naturopathic doctor and started the process to administer legal pot, learning Tuesday that their applications have been approved.

Medical marijuana isn’t covered by insurance. The state currently picks up the $5,000 a month tab for Zander’s prescriptions.

The CBD oil will cost about $300 a week out-of-pocket. The Weltons have been reaching out to friends and family for donations.

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

NBC Al Roker Has Epiphany… His 14-Year Old Daughter Can Now Get Morning After Pill

Marion Algier – Ask Marion – Cross-posted at THITW – h/t to TLA

 Al_Roker-1"Al" Albert Lincoln Roker, Jr., television weatherman and co-host of NBC's Today Show had an epiphany on today’s show (06.11.13), about a week late… or is that perhaps years late?… realizing that his 14-year-old daughter can now go get the morning after pill without his permission or even notification.

America has become a country of low and mis-informed voters fed by a media comprised primarily of either the ‘ideologically motivated’ or equally low and mis-informed people… or both, that for many Americans are their only source of news and information.

I mean really, Al… Albeit ‘Obama Central’', you work in the talk show/news industry; have ‘with it’ first and second wives (Deborah Roberts) and you have young children, a daughter.  Hello??

So which is Al… ‘ideologically motivated’, low and mis-informed… or both?  You be the judge.

Video:  Remember:…Weatherman Al Roker 'Yells Down' VP Joe Biden in 2nd Inauguration Parade (He and media pals… like MSNBC ‘quiver down my leg’ Chris Mathews go nuts)

Court Rules: Girls of Any Age Can Buy Morning-After Pill… Without Parental Consent

The brief order issued by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan permitted two-pill versions of emergency contraception to immediately be sold without restrictions, but the court refused to allow unrestricted sales of Plan B One-Step until it decides the merits of the government's appeal. It did not specify why the two-pill versions were being allowed now, though it said the government failed to meet the requirements necessary to block the lower-court decision.

Department of Justice spokeswoman Allison Price said the government was reviewing the court's order.

Appeals on both sides are pending…

Court: Girls of Any Age Can Buy Morning After Pill

CHICAGO, IL – APRIL 05: This photo illustration shows a package of Plan B contraceptive on April 5, 2013 in Chicago, Illinois. Credit: Getty Images

This photo illustration shows a package of Plan B contraceptive generic version

TheBlaze: NEW YORK (AP) — Girls of any age can buy generic versions of emergency contraception without a prescription while the federal government appeals a judge’s ruling allowing the sales, according to a ruling Wednesday by a federal appeals court.

The brief order issued by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan permitted two-pill versions of emergency contraception to immediately be sold without restrictions, but the court refused to allow unrestricted sales of Plan B One-Step until it decides the merits of the government’s appeal. It did not specify why the two-pill versions were being allowed now, though it said the government failed to meet the requirements necessary to block the lower-court decision.

The order was welcomed by the Center for Reproductive Rights, where President Nancy Northup called it a “historic day for women’s health.”

“Finally, after more than a decade of politically motivated delays, women will no longer have to endure intrusive, onerous and medically unnecessary restrictions to get emergency contraception,” she said in a statement.

The center’s litigation director, Julie Rickelman, said the government has two weeks to decide whether to appeal the 2nd Circuit’s decision on the stay to the full appeals court or the Supreme Court. Even if there is no appeal of the stay ruling, it was unclear how soon drugstores would move the two-pill emergency contraception from behind the counter. She said she hoped the pills would be available without restriction within a month.

“What it does mean is that generic two-pill products are going to be readily available to women without age restrictions, on any drugstore shelf,” Rickelman said. “It’ll be like buying Tylenol. You’ll be able to go get it off the drugstore shelf, no ID, at the regular counter.”

Justice Department spokeswoman Allison Price said the government was reviewing the court’s order.

Court: Girls of Any Age Can Buy Morning After Pill

CHICAGO, IL – APRIL 05: This photo illustration shows a package of Plan B contraceptive on April 5, 2013 in Chicago, Illinois.

The government has appealed U.S. District Judge Edward Korman’s underlying April 5 ruling, which ordered levonorgestrel-based emergency contraceptives be made available without a prescription, over-the-counter and without point-of-sale or age restrictions.

The government asked Korman to suspend the effect of that ruling until the appeals court could decide the case, but the judge declined, saying the government’s decision to restrict sales was “politically motivated, scientifically unjustified and contrary to agency precedent.” He also said there was no basis to deny the request to make the drugs widely available.

The government had argued that “substantial market confusion” could result if Korman’s ruling was enforced while appeals were pending, only to be later overturned.

The Food and Drug Administration was preparing in 2011 to allow over-the-counter sales of the morning-after pill with no limits when Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius overruled her own scientists in an unprecedented move.

The FDA announced in early May that Plan B One-Step could be sold without a prescription to those 15 and older. Its maker, Teva Women’s Health, plans to begin those sales soon. Sales had previously been limited to those who were at least 17.

Korman later ridiculed the FDA changes, saying they established “nonsensical rules” that favored sales of the Plan B One-Step morning-after pill and were made “to sugarcoat” the government’s appeal.

He also said they place a disproportionate burden on blacks and the poor by requiring a prescription for less expensive generic versions of the drug bought by those under age 17 and by requiring those over age 17 to show proof-of-age identification at a pharmacy.

Plan B One-Step is the newer version of emergency contraception – the same drug, but combined into one pill instead of two.

Saturday, December 8, 2012

Court Rules Feds Can Vaccinate Kids Without Consent Under Public Health Emergency

By Heather Callaghan  -  Activist Post  -  December 8, 2012 – h/t to Jean stoner

New Yorker Jennifer Parker was alarmed when she found out that a public health nurse vaccinated her 5-year-old daughter, Madison, against her wishes.

This was during a flu outbreak in late 2009. Jennifer fought the action, citing negligence and battery and sued both the school district and health department in St. Lawrence County Supreme Court.

The school district was let off the hook.

Matters seemed resolved as that court ruled in her favor saying that the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP) couldn’t extend to just any situation where government workers could administer drugs without consent. But that ruling was short lived.

The health department appealed and it was the Third Judicial Appellate Court that overturned the previous ruling, deciding on November 21st this year, that PREP trumps, or rather, preempts state laws regarding that matter.

Did you know that we are apparently in an unending state of public health emergency?

The emergency in the situation above? H1N1 flu…

Madison Parker was given a Peramivir inoculation for H1N1 flu virus.

But this ruling was based on an assumed intention of Congress and the assumption of public health emergency:

we conclude that Congress intended to preempt all state law tort claims arising from the administration of covered countermeasures by a qualified person pursuant to a declaration by the Secretary [of Health and Human Services].

So because of this ruling, at least in New York, PREP’s arbitrary mandates override state laws that allow exemption from seasonal flu vaccines. Health workers can vaccinate children without their parents’ permission or knowledge because they deemed it a public health emergency and that it was Congressional intention.

According to Courthouse News, Justice Karen Peters wrote a statement for the five-judge panel:

We must presume that Congress fully understood that errors in administering a vaccination program may have physical as well as emotional consequences, and determined that such potential tort liability must give way to the need to promptly and efficiently respond to a pandemic or other public health emergency…

So, mistakes happen…but it’s best for the public good.

The Justices were “unpersuaded” by Parker’s argument that immunity under these circumstances didn’t mean any deemed qualified person could administer drugs against her will.

And we wouldn’t want to let a good government contract go to waste. Peters also wrote:

The immunity provisions of the PREP Act are triggered where, as here, the vaccines are purchased pursuant to a federal contract or agreement.

Peters said that because there are “exclusive federal remedies” (the Federal Government’s just cause under PREP), that reason further supports preemption.

Therefore, the decision concluded “the complaint must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”

And what have we here? Another compensation program! That should make everything all better, right?

Courthouse News wrote:

PREP also created the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program, which handles claims by individuals who suffer adverse reactions to devices, medications or therapies that have been recommended for use in public health emergencies, the decision notes.

Peters further noted that separate federal causes of action exist for wrongful death or serious physical injury resulting from misconduct by licensed health professionals.

So, not only is PREP admitting and setting up funds for very possible injuries upon administering vaccinations, but they themselves are immunized from liability in civil liberties violations – administering drugs against a person’s will. Great swerve guys – same MO every time.

Brian Shilhavy over at Health Impact News made some great points about the case:

1. Was the H1N1 flu virus any more dangerous than previous seasons’ flu strains? (See: H1N1 Swine Flu Even Milder than Seasonal Strains)
2. Did the H1N1 vaccine conclusively offer protection from the H1N1 flu virus? ( See: New Study Exposes the “60% Effective” Flu Shot as 98.5% Useless)
3. Does the flu vaccine present risks, especially for young children? (See: Confirmed! Flu Vaccine INCREASES Risk of Serious Pandemic Flu Illness; & 4,250% Increase in Fetal Deaths Reported to VAERS After Flu Shot Given to Pregnant Women)

Points like these, civil liberties, and state exemptions for religious, philosophical, and medical reasons exist but are not often upheld.

Especially when the Federal Government can arbitrarily declare “state of emergency” and trump state rulings.

It also seems like for anyone in this type of situation it might be better to sue only individuals involved, not governmental departments – what do you think?

Related:

For The Record: Rockefeller Soft Kill Depopulation Plans Exposed

STERILIZATION OF OUR CHILDREN HAS BEGUN WITH THE H1N1 VACCINE...

Myth Busted: Vaccinations Are Not Immunizations

Study: Unvaccinated children less prone to allergies and disease than vaccinated children

Drug Companies Shift Emphasis to Vaccines

U.S. government panel now pushing “vaccinations for all!” No exceptions…

What they won’t admit about measles outbreaks: Most children who catch measles were already vaccinated

Door to Door Vaccinations: Training the Public for Forced Innoculations

Italian Court Says MMR Vaccine Causes Autism!

First Daughters Not Vaccinated Against H1N1

Bill Gates Confirms Population Reduction Through Vaccination on CNN

Katie Couric Reports on Serious Vaccine Safety Issues – Finally!!

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Tells Truth About Government Coverup of Vaccine Dangers

"The" Dr. Oz Bait for Vaccine: Why Did He Do It?? Oz Kids and Wife Not Getting H1N1

Flu Vaccine Exposed...

Even Dog and Cat Vaccines are Not Harmless Preventive Medicine

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Attention Disorder or Not, Pills to Help in School

“We’ve decided as a society that it’s too expensive to modify the kid’s environment. So we have to modify the kid.”

NY Times: CANTON, Ga. — When Dr. Michael Anderson hears about his low-income patients struggling in elementary school, he usually gives them a taste of some powerful medicine: Adderall.’

The pills boost focus and impulse control in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Although A.D.H.D is the diagnosis Dr. Anderson makes, he calls the disorder “made up” and “an excuse” to prescribe the pills to treat what he considers the children’s true ill — poor academic performance in inadequate schools.

“I don’t have a whole lot of choice,” said Dr. Anderson, a pediatrician for many poor families in Cherokee County, north of Atlanta. “We’ve decided as a society that it’s too expensive to modify the kid’s environment. So we have to modify the kid.”

Dr. Anderson is one of the more outspoken proponents of an idea that is gaining interest among some physicians. They are prescribing stimulants to struggling students in schools starved of extra money — not to treat A.D.H.D., necessarily, but to boost their academic performance.

It is not yet clear whether Dr. Anderson is representative of a widening trend. But some experts note that as wealthy students abuse stimulants to raise already-good grades in colleges and high schools, the medications are being used on low-income elementary school children with faltering grades and parents eager to see them succeed.

“We as a society have been unwilling to invest in very effective nonpharmaceutical interventions for these children and their families,” said Dr. Ramesh Raghavan, a child mental-health services researcher at Washington University in St. Louis and an expert in prescription drug use among low-income children. “We are effectively forcing local community psychiatrists to use the only tool at their disposal, which is psychotropic medications.”

Dr. Nancy Rappaport, a child psychiatrist in Cambridge, Mass., who works primarily with lower-income children and their schools, added: “We are seeing this more and more. We are using a chemical straitjacket instead of doing things that are just as important to also do, sometimes more.”

Dr. Anderson’s instinct, he said, is that of a “social justice thinker” who is “evening the scales a little bit.” He said that the children he sees with academic problems are essentially “mismatched with their environment” — square pegs chafing the round holes of public education. Because their families can rarely afford behavior-based therapies like tutoring and family counseling, he said, medication becomes the most reliable and pragmatic way to redirect the student toward success.

“People who are getting A’s and B’s, I won’t give it to them,” he said. For some parents the pills provide great relief. Jacqueline Williams said she can’t thank Dr. Anderson enough for diagnosing A.D.H.D. in her children — Eric, 15; Chekiara, 14; and Shamya, 11 — and prescribing Concerta, a long-acting stimulant, for them all. She said each was having trouble listening to instructions and concentrating on schoolwork.

“My kids don’t want to take it, but I told them, ‘These are your grades when you’re taking it, this is when you don’t,’ and they understood,” Ms. Williams said, noting that Medicaid covers almost every penny of her doctor and prescription costs.

Some experts see little harm in a responsible physician using A.D.H.D. medications to help a struggling student. Others — even among the many like Dr. Rappaport who praise the use of stimulants as treatment for classic A.D.H.D. — fear that doctors are exposing children to unwarranted physical and psychological risks. Reported side effects of the drugs have included growth suppression, increased blood pressure and, in rare cases, psychotic episodes.

The disorder, which is characterized by severe inattention and impulsivity, is an increasingly common psychiatric diagnosis among American youth: about 9.5 percent of Americans ages 4 to 17 were judged to have it in 2007, or about 5.4 million children, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The reported prevalence of the disorder has risen steadily for more than a decade, with some doctors gratified by its widening recognition but others fearful that the diagnosis, and the drugs to treat it, are handed out too loosely and at the exclusion of nonpharmaceutical therapies.

The Drug Enforcement Administration classifies these medications as Schedule II Controlled Substances because they are particularly addictive. Long-term effects of extended use are not well understood, said many medical experts. Some of them worry that children can become dependent on the medication well into adulthood, long after any A.D.H.D. symptoms can dissipate.

According to guidelines published last year by the American Academy of Pediatrics, physicians should use one of several behavior rating scales, some of which feature dozens of categories, to make sure that a child not only fits criteria for A.D.H.D., but also has no related condition like dyslexia or oppositional defiant disorder, in which intense anger is directed toward authority figures. However, a 2010 study in the Journal of Attention Disorders suggested that at least 20 percent of doctors said they did not follow this protocol when making their A.D.H.D. diagnoses, with many of them following personal instinct.

On the Rocafort family’s kitchen shelf in Ball Ground, Ga., next to the peanut butter and chicken broth, sits a wire basket brimming with bottles of the children’s medications, prescribed by Dr. Anderson: Adderall for Alexis, 12; and Ethan, 9; Risperdal (an antipsychotic for mood stabilization) for Quintn and Perry, both 11; and Clonidine (a sleep aid to counteract the other medications) for all four, taken nightly.

Quintn began taking Adderall for A.D.H.D. about five years ago, when his disruptive school behavior led to calls home and in-school suspensions. He immediately settled down and became a more earnest, attentive student — a little bit more like Perry, who also took Adderall for his A.D.H.D.

When puberty’s chemical maelstrom began at about 10, though, Quintn got into fights at school because, he said, other children were insulting his mother. The problem was, they were not; Quintn was seeing people and hearing voices that were not there, a rare but recognized side effect of Adderall. After Quintn admitted to being suicidal, Dr. Anderson prescribed a week in a local psychiatric hospital, and a switch to Risperdal.

While telling this story, the Rocaforts called Quintn into the kitchen and asked him to describe why he had been given Adderall.

“To help me focus on my school work, my homework, listening to Mom and Dad, and not doing what I used to do to my teachers, to make them mad,” he said. He described the week in the hospital and the effects of Risperdal: “If I don’t take my medicine I’d be having attitudes. I’d be disrespecting my parents. I wouldn’t be like this.”

Despite Quintn’s experience with Adderall, the Rocaforts decided to use it with their 12-year-old daughter, Alexis, and 9-year-old son, Ethan. These children don’t have A.D.H.D., their parents said. The Adderall is merely to help their grades, and because Alexis was, in her father’s words, “a little blah.”

”We’ve seen both sides of the spectrum: we’ve seen positive, we’ve seen negative,” the father, Rocky Rocafort, said. Acknowledging that Alexis’s use of Adderall is “cosmetic,” he added, “If they’re feeling positive, happy, socializing more, and it’s helping them, why wouldn’t you? Why not?”

Dr. William Graf, a pediatrician and child neurologist who serves many poor families in New Haven, said that a family should be able to choose for itself whether Adderall can benefit its non-A.D.H.D. child, and that a physician can ethically prescribe a trial as long as side effects are closely monitored. He expressed concern, however, that the rising use of stimulants in this manner can threaten what he called “the authenticity of development.”

“These children are still in the developmental phase, and we still don’t know how these drugs biologically affect the developing brain,” he said. “There’s an obligation for parents, doctors and teachers to respect the authenticity issue, and I’m not sure that’s always happening.”

Dr. Anderson said that every child he treats with A.D.H.D. medication has met qualifications. But he also railed against those criteria, saying they were codified only to “make something completely subjective look objective.” He added that teacher reports almost invariably come back as citing the behaviors that would warrant a diagnosis, a decision he called more economic than medical.

“The school said if they had other ideas they would,” Dr. Anderson said. “But the other ideas cost money and resources compared to meds.”

Dr. Anderson cited William G. Hasty Elementary School here in Canton as one school he deals with often. Izell McGruder, the school’s principal, did not respond to several messages seeking comment.

Several educators contacted for this article considered the subject of A.D.H.D. so controversial — the diagnosis was misused at times, they said, but for many children it is a serious learning disability — that they declined to comment. The superintendent of one major school district in California, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, noted that diagnosis rates of A.D.H.D. have risen as sharply as school funding has declined.

“It’s scary to think that this is what we’ve come to; how not funding public education to meet the needs of all kids has led to this,” said the superintendent, referring to the use of stimulants in children without classic A.D.H.D. “I don’t know, but it could be happening right here. Maybe not as knowingly, but it could be a consequence of a doctor who sees a kid failing in overcrowded classes with 42 other kids and the frustrated parents asking what they can do. The doctor says, ‘Maybe it’s A.D.H.D., let’s give this a try.’ ”

When told that the Rocaforts insist that their two children on Adderall do not have A.D.H.D. and never did, Dr. Anderson said he was surprised. He consulted their charts and found the parent questionnaire. Every category, which assessed the severity of behaviors associated with A.D.H.D., received a five out of five except one, which was a four.

“This is my whole angst about the thing,” Dr. Anderson said. “We put a label on something that isn’t binary — you have it or you don’t. We won’t just say that there is a student who has problems in school, problems at home, and probably, according to the doctor with agreement of the parents, will try medical treatment.”

He added, “We might not know the long-term effects, but we do know the short-term costs of school failure, which are real. I am looking to the individual person and where they are right now. I am the doctor for the patient, not for society.”

Related:  Government Sponsored Mind Control In America: The Teen Screen Scam   - 

Dave Hodges | When you are deemed to be mentally ill for not embracing totalitarianism and they come for you, what will you do?

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Stop Junk Food Marketing to Kids

Video:  Stop Junk Food Marketing to Kids

By Dr. Mercola

Junk food is contributing to skyrocketing rates of diabetes, high blood pressure, and even strokes -- and not just among adults.

Food and beverage companies spend $2 billion a year promoting unhealthy foods to kids, and while ultimately it's the parents' responsibility to feed their children healthy foods, junk food ads make this much more difficult than it should be.

A new campaign, We're Not Buying It, is now underway to help expose deceptive marketing to children, debunk industry claims, and highlight the latest research, in the hopes of ending this assault on today's youth, and I'll explain how you can get involved, too, below.

Does Your Child Recognize the "Golden Arches"?

Most toddlers recognize the sign of McDonald's "golden arches" long before they are speaking in full sentences.

Why?

Because they are often raised on French fries, fast-food hamburgers and orange soda, or if "raised" is a bit of a stretch, are taught that French fries, chicken fingers and soda is an acceptable meal. Have you noticed that even in "regular" restaurants the kids' menu options are almost always entirely junk food like pizza, macaroni and cheese or fried chicken strips?

Of course kids will probably prefer these foods if that's what they're offered; these foods are manufactured to taste good, and most kids aren't going to opt for a spear of broccoli over a French fry -- until they're old enough to understand the implications of the choice, and assuming you have taught them about the importance of eating healthy foods along the way.

In many ways society is set up against you on this one. As The Interagency Working Group on Foods Marketed to Children (IWG) reports:

  • The fast-food industry spends more than $5 million every day marketing unhealthy foods to children.
  • Kids watch an average of over 10 food-related ads every day (nearly 4,000/year).
  • Nearly all (98 percent) of food advertisements viewed by children are for products that are high in fat, sugar or sodium. Most (79 percent) are low in fiber.

So even under the best circumstances, your kids will probably be exposed to the latest "cool" kid foods, and this is what marketers are banking on. Then, when you go to the grocery store, your child will have a meltdown if you don't give in and buy the cereal with their favorite cartoon character on the box, or the cookies with brightly colored chips. If you're a parent, it's certainly easier to just give in, but it's imperative to be strong as shaping your child's eating habits starts very early on …

Your Child's Taste Preferences are Created by Age 3

Research shows when parents fed their preschool-aged children junk foods high in sugar, salt and unhealthy fats, it had a lasting impact on their taste preferences. All of the children tested showed preferences for junk foods, and all (even those who were just 3 years old!) were also able to recognize some soda, fast food and junk food brands.

The researchers concluded what you probably already suspect: kids who were exposed to junk food, soda and fast food, via advertising and also because their parents fed them these foods, learned to recognize and prefer these foods over healthier choices. This does have an impact on their health, as nutrients from quality foods are critical in helping your child reach his or her fullest potential!

One study from British researchers revealed that kids who ate a predominantly processed food diet at age 3 had lower IQ scores at age 8.5. For each measured increase in processed foods, participants had a 1.67-point decrease in IQ.

As you might suspect, the opposite also held true, with those eating healthier diets experiencing higher IQ levels. For each measured increase in dietary score, which meant the child was eating more fruits and vegetables for instance, there was a 1.2-point increase in IQ.

The reality is, the best time to shape your kids' eating habits is while they're still young. This means starting from birth with breast milk and then transitioning to solid foods that have valuable nutrients, like egg yolk, avocado and sweet potatoes. (You can easily cross any form of grain-based infant cereal off of this list.)

From there, ideally you will feed your child healthy foods that your family is also eating -- grass-fed meats, organic veggies, vegetable juice, raw dairy and nuts, and so on. These are the foods your child will thrive on, and it's important they learn what real, healthy food is right from the get-go. This way, when they become tweens and teenagers, they may eat junk food here and there at a friend's house, but they will return to real food as the foundation of their diet -- and that habit will continue on with them for a lifetime.

This is What Happens When You Let Marketers Dictate Your Kid's Diet …

The state of most kids' diets in the United States is not easy to swallow. As IWG reported:

  • Nearly 40% of children's diets come from added sugars and unhealthy fats.
  • Only 21% of youth age 6-19 eat the recommended five or more servings of fruits and vegetables each day

This is a veritable recipe for disease, and is a primary reason why today's kids are arguably less healthy than many prior generations. Obesity, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure -- these are diseases that once appeared only in middle-age and beyond, but are now impacting children. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that by 2050, one in three U.S. adults will have diabetes -- one of them could be your child if you do not take steps to cancel out the messages junk-food marketers are sending and instead teach them healthy eating habits.

Make no mistake, the advertisers are doing all they can to lure your child in.

In fact, last year the food and beverage industry spent more than $40 billion, yes billion, lobbying congress against regulations that would decrease the marketing of unhealthy foods to kids. You can do a lot of persuading with $40 billion, which may explain why food manufacturers are allowed to get away with so much -- like putting pictures of fruit all over product packaging when the product actually contains no fruit.

A 2011 study by the Prevention Institute even found that 84 percent of food packages that contain symbols specifically intended to help people choose healthier foods did not meet even basic nutritional standards! In fact, 57 percent of these "Better-for-You" children's foods were high in sugar, 95 percent contained added sugar, and 21 percent contained artificial colors. So you need to be very wary when buying any processed foods for your kids, even the "healthy" ones, as they will most certainly contain large amounts of fructose with very little to offer in the way of healthy nutrition.

Help Fight Back Against Junk-Food Marketers and Stand Up for Kids' Health

The Prevention Institute's "We're Not Buying It" campaign is petitioning President Obama to put voluntary, science-based nutrition guidelines into place for companies that market foods to kids. You can sign this petition now, but I urge you to go a step further and stop supporting the companies that are marketing junk foods to your children today.

Ideally, you and your family will want to vote with your pocketbook and avoid as much processed food as possible and use unprocessed raw, organic and/or locally grown foods as much as possible. Your children should be eating the same wholesome foods you are -- they don't need bright-blue juice or deep-fried "nuggets" any more than you do.

If you and your kids are absolutely hooked on fast food and other processed foods, you're going to need some help and most likely some support from friends and family if you want to kick the junk-food lifestyle. Besides surrounding yourself with supportive, like-minded people, you can also review my article "How to Wean Yourself Off Processed Foods in 7 Steps" or read the book I wrote on the subject, called Generation XL: Raising Healthy, Intelligent Kids in a High-Tech, Junk-Food World.

Finally, my nutrition plan offers a step-by-step guide to feed your family right, and I encourage you to read through it now. You need to first educate yourself about proper nutrition and the dangers of junk food and processed foods in order to change the food culture of your entire family. To give your child the best start at life, and help instill healthy habits that will last a lifetime, you must lead by example. Children will simply not know which foods are healthy unless you, as a parent, teach it to them first.

Monday, April 9, 2012

Austin’s Fluoridated Water Supply is Poisoning Our Children

Infowars.com | Should Austin’s infants and children be drinking our tap water when it tastes moldy and more like the bottom of Lake Austin than healthy, pure water? 

But this should be a concern for all Americans, fluoride is added to the water systems of more water districts throughout American than not and with more and more people moving to Texas and Austin specifically, it could be a direct problem for more and more people moving there!

Video:  Austin's Fluoridated Water Supply is Poisoning Our Children

Should Austin’s infants and children be drinking our tap water when it tastes moldy and more like the bottom of Lake Austin than healthy, pure water? According to the Environmental Working Group, Austin’s tap water exceeds the EPA’s health limits for chlorinated compounds, lead, and coliform bacteria.

Also, many may not be aware that City Council distributes a one size fits all medication, fluoride, through our water supply. Because of the distribution method for fluoride, children and adults get the same amount in a glass of water.

And, because there is no dose adjustment or control for size, weight, height, or sensitivity, fluoride causes multiple side effects such as dental fluorosis, hypothyroidism, osteosclerosis and the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) has issued a powerful Resolution against fluoridation.

In addition, the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) of the fluoride chemical, hydrofluorosilicic acid, that is added to Austin’s water supply, recently included a health warning for children.

Related:

How Prolonged Ingestion of Fluoridated Drinking Water Damages The Brain

How to Detox Fluorides from Your Body

Don’t Drink the Water

Dumbing Down Society Part I: Foods, Beverages and Meds

Aluminum + Fluoride = Alzheimer’s and Dementia

FLUORIDE TRUTH hits the TV in AUSTRALIA

Additional related posts at Infowars.com:

  1. CDC adjusts fluoride poisoning of America’s water supply to a lower level
  2. Pinellas County Commission votes to stop putting fluoride in water supply
  3. ADA study confirms dangers of fluoridated water, especially for babies
  4. Mobile fluoride vans to target communities that voted to remove chemical from public water supply
  5. World Health Organization: Fluoridate Water-Supply Population-Specifically
  6. New Hampshire bills would ban foreign substances & fluoride from water supply
  7. Fluoridated water now reaches nearly 70% of U.S. population
  8. World Fluoridated Water Map
  9. Too Much Fluoride in the Drinking Water
  10. Calgary removing fluoride from water supply
  11. Judge ok’s adding fluoride to city’s tap water supply – despite overwhelming public opposition
  12. Teenagers want fluoride-free water

Friday, October 28, 2011

WHY IS THE GOVERNMENT NOW RECOMMENDING THE HPV VACCINE FOR BOYS?

As if the HPV vaccine wasn’t controversial enough. Now, a government panel is recommending that boys age 11-12 also get the shot. Why?

  • The panel believes it will help reduce the risk of women getting the sexually transmitted human papilloma virus.
  • Studies show that it prevents 90 percent of genital warts in men and it reduces risk of anal, penile and throat cancers.

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices made the recommendation Tuesday for boys to also receive the three-dose vaccine, which is still recommended to girls to prevent the STD that could increase risk for cervical cancer. Federal health officials usually adopt what the panel says and asks doctors and patients to follow the recommendations.

Time reports that the vaccine was approved for this use in boys by the Center for Disease Control back in 2009, but more evidence was needed before a formal recommendation was made. Research supporting this recommendation, according to Time, includes:

In February, for example, researchers reported that the HPV vaccine prevented 90 percent of genital warts in men who were not infected with the virus before immunization. The vaccine was also found to be 75 percent effective in protecting against anal cancer in a study of primarily gay men. It also protects against certain penile and throat cancers, and recent data suggest that HPV is increasingly responsible for mouth and throat cancers, which have been on the rise — probably because of increasing rates of oral sex.

Some parents may ask, “‘Why are you vaccinating my son against anal cancer? He’s not gay! He’s not ever going to be gay!’ I can see that will come up,” Ranit Mishori, a family practice doctor in Washington, D.C., Mishori, who supports the committee’s recommendation, said to the Associated Press.

Aside from protecting against genital warts in boys, doctors also say that boys could also help prevent the spread of the sexually transmitted virus to girls.

The HPV vaccine controversy stems from the fact that boys and girls would not have to worry about the adverse side effects of HPV if they abstained from sexual intercourse.

According to the Associated Press, since the vaccine was introduced for girls five years ago, only about a third of adolescent girls have been fully vaccinated against the virus. It’s a percentage that Dr. Anne Schuchat, a U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Administrator says is “pretty terrible.”

NPR reports Merck, the pharmaceutical manufacturer of Gardasil, as saying the shot, which runs $100 per dose, will make economic sense if it helps reduce transmission of the virus.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

h/t to the Blaze

Related:

The Gardasil Timeline: A History of Corruption and Negative Reactions

Exposed: Illinois Law Financially Penalizes Schools When Vaccination Rates Drop Below 90%

Gardasil – If A Picture is Worth A Thousand Words, Then A Video Report, Or Two, Or Three, or SEVEN…

Merck Vaccine Scientist Dr. Maurice Hilleman Admitted Presence of SV40, AIDS and Cancer Viruses in Vaccines

Rick Perry - Lies About Dying Woman and His HPV Decisions

Bill Gates Confirms Population Reduction Through Vaccination on CNN

Video: Gardasil & Vaccine Dangers: Coast to Coast AM – Oct 20, 2011 – George Noory

Vaccinations: A Thoughtful Parent's Guide: How to Make Safe, Sensible Decisions about the Risks, Benefits, and Alternatives

Wednesday, June 1, 2011

WHO: Cell phone use can increase possible cancer risk

By Danielle Dellorto, CNN  -  May 31, 2011 1:49 p.m. EDT

(CNN) -- Radiation from cell phones can possibly cause cancer, according to the World Health Organization. The agency now lists mobile phone use in the same "carcinogenic hazard" category as lead, engine exhaust and chloroform.

Before its announcement Tuesday, WHO had assured consumers that no adverse health effects had been established.

A team of 31 scientists from 14 countries, including the United States, made the decision after reviewing peer-reviewed studies on cell phone safety. The team found enough evidence to categorize personal exposure as "possibly carcinogenic to humans."

What that means is they found some evidence of increase in glioma and acoustic neuroma brain cancer for mobile phone users, but have not been able to draw conclusions for other types of cancers

"The biggest problem we have is that we know most environmental factors take several decades of exposure before we really see the consequences," said Dr. Keith Black, chairman of neurology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.

Is your cell phone safe?

Dr. Gupta explores cell phone safety

How to use your cell phone safely

Can cell phones cause cancer?

RELATED TOPICS

The type of radiation coming out of a cell phone is called non-ionizing. It is not like an X-ray, but more like a very low-powered microwave oven.

"What microwave radiation does in most simplistic terms is similar to what happens to food in microwaves, essentially cooking the brain," Black said. "So in addition to leading to a development of cancer and tumors, there could be a whole host of other effects like cognitive memory function, since the memory temporal lobes are where we hold our cell phones."

Wireless industry responded to Tuesday's announcement saying it "does not mean cell phones cause cancer." CTIA-The Wireless Association added that WHO researchers "did not conduct any new research, but rather reviewed published studies."

The European Environmental Agency has pushed for more studies, saying cell phones could be as big a public health risk as smoking, asbestos and leaded gasoline. The head of a prominent cancer-research institute at the University of Pittsburgh sent a memo to all employees urging them to limit cell phone use because of a possible risk of cancer.

"When you look at cancer development -- particularly brain cancer -- it takes a long time to develop. I think it is a good idea to give the public some sort of warning that long-term exposure to radiation from your cell phone could possibly cause cancer," said Dr. Henry Lai, research professor in bioengineering at University of Washington who has studied radiation for more than 30 years.

Results from the largest international study on cell phones and cancer was released in 2010. It showed participants in the study who used a cell phone for 10 years or more had doubled the rate of brain glioma, a type of tumor. To date, there have been no long-term studies on the effects of cell phone usage among children.

"Children's skulls and scalps are thinner. So the radiation can penetrate deeper into the brain of children and young adults. Their cells are at a dividing faster rate, so the impact of radiation can be much larger." said Black of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center.

In February, a study by researchers at the National Institutes of Health, revealed radiation emitted after just 50 minutes on a mobile phone increases the activity in brain cells. The effects of brain activity being artificially stimulated are still unknown.

Neurosurgeon and CNN chief medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta says Tuesday's announcement, "dealt a blow to those who have long said, 'There is no possible mechanism for cell phones to cause cancer.' By classifying cell phones as a possible carcinogen, they also seem to be tacitly admitting a mechanism could exist."

Manufacturers of many popular cell phones already warn consumers to keep their device away from their body and medical experts say there other ways to minimize cell phone radiation.

The Apple iPhone 4 safety manual says users' radiation exposure should not exceed FCC guidelines: "When using iPhone near your body for voice calls or for wireless data transmission over a cellular network, keep iPhone at least 15 millimeters (5/8 inch) away from the body."

BlackBerry Bold advises users to "keep the BlackBerry device at least 0.98 inch (25 millimeters) from your body when the BlackBerry device is transmitting."

The logic behind such recommendations is that the further the phone is from the body, the less radiation is absorbed. Users can also use the speakerphone function or a wired earpiece to gain some distance.

Users can text instead of talk if they want to keep the phone away from their faces.

Finally, cell phones emit the most radiation when they are attempting to connect to cellular towers. A moving phone, or a phone in an area with a weak signal, has to work harder, giving of more radiation. So users can avoid using their cell phones in elevators, buildings and rural areas if they want to reduce their exposure, experts say.

Go to CNN Health for complete report with video.

Gosh is there anyone out there other than me that just wants to scream “DUH!!!  And what scares me the most, is that we are exposing our young children to this daily.  Kids don’t need cell phones for a lot of reasons… more cons than pros and here is another big one!

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Kids who get recommended sleep least likely to be obese

How the body can thwart weight-loss efforts

Nanci Hellmich  -  USA TODAY  -  01-24-11

Parents, here's another good reason to make sure your kids get enough shut-eye: Children who get sufficient sleep are less likely to be obese, a new study shows.

Other research shows sleep affects kids' academic performance, mood and attention span.

For the latest study, scientists at the University of Chicago and the University of Louisville compared the sleep patterns of 308 children, ages 4-10, with their body mass index, a number that considers height and weight. The children wore special wrist-band devices for a week to track the amount they slept.

Some of the kids had blood work done to look at their glucose, insulin, triglycerides and cholesterol levels, which are markers for the risk of type 2 diabetes and future cardiovascular disease.

The study, out online today in Pediatrics, shows:

*Kids slept an average of eight hours a night. This is far less than the nine or more hours recommended for this age group.

*Kids who slept at least 9 1/2 to 10 hours were the least likely to be obese or to have unhealthy blood work.

*The children who slept the least and had the most irregular sleep schedule (they didn't go to bed at a set time) had a substantially greater risk of being obese and having unhealthy blood work.

*Those who got caught up on sleep on the weekends somewhat reduced their risk of being obese or having unhealthy blood work.

*Obese children were less likely to get caught up on their sleep on the weekends.

"Good sleep routines and sleeping the right amount is the best healthy proposition," says lead author David Gozal, chair of the department of pediatrics at the University of Chicago.

About one-third of children and adolescents in the USA weigh too much, putting them at increased risk for type 2 diabetes, high cholesterol, sleep apnea and other health problems.

Previous research shows that not getting enough sleep may contribute to weight gain partly because it affects hormones that control hunger and feeling full.

Copyright 2009 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Empowerment: Women Now Choose Objectification Over ‘Creepy’ Breastfeeding

This just shows how far we have come from what is important, what is natural and what is best for our children and families… Vanity 1st

You’ve come a long way, baby. But make sure you keep babies off my “fun bags.” Or so says Kathryn Blundell, editor at the parenting magazine, Mother & Baby.

Under the headline “I formula fed. So what?”, Kathryn Blundell says in this month’s Mother & Baby that she bottle fed her child from birth because “I wanted my body back. (And some wine)… I also wanted to give my boobs at least a chance to stay on my chest rather than dangling around my stomach.”

She goes on to say: “They’re part of my sexuality, too – not just breasts, but fun bags. And when you have that attitude (and I admit I made no attempt to change it), seeing your teeny, tiny, innocent baby latching on where only a lover has been before feels, well, a little creepy.”

She concedes that “there are all the studies that show [breastfeeding] reduces the risk of breast cancer for you, and stomach upsets and allergies for your baby. But even the convenience and supposed healthbenefits of breast milk couldn’t induce me to stick my nipple in a bawling baby’s mouth.”

Thanks bunches, “sexual empowerment!” You’ve now made nurturing a child “creepy.” Many Web sites, like Lactivist, are upset over the negative, and misleading, message that the above article sends about breastfeeding and the benefits thereof. That is an issue; breastfeeding is frowned upon far too often and many women succumb to the pressures of family or work, and wean their babies earlier than they actually want to.

Finish reading, if you have the stomach for it here.

Hat tip to Rhonda Robinson on June 30, 2010 at 6:13pm @ AAM

Reposted: True Health Is True Wealth

Monday, February 22, 2010

The Breast Whisperer

MOTHER’S MILK Freda Rosenfeld, a lactation consultant, works with a client and her 6-week-old baby.

By ELISSA GOOTMAN - Published: February 19, 2010

AMY BRILL, a writer who lives in Windsor Terrace, survived nine months and six days of pregnancy, then 40 hours of labor. But after a few days of nursing, she was in excruciating pain, crying every time her baby latched on. Ms. Brill’s pediatrician wrote out a phone number as if it were a prescription. “Call this woman,” he said. “She’s seen every new mom in Brooklyn.”

Not quite, but over the last five years this woman, Freda Rosenfeld, has seen some 2,000 new moms, some of them multiple times, and many with multiple babies at once.

Ms. Rosenfeld is part medical professional, part therapist and part sleuth; a hand-holder, tongue-coaxer, savior of sore nipples. At 52, she wears her chestnut hair in an ageless ponytail and bangs, dressing in long denim skirts — the better to get spit up on — and cruises the borough with a “got breastmilk?” bumper sticker on her minivan.

A certified lactation consultant, she swoops in at one of the most vulnerable moments in many women’s lives, charging $200 ($160 if you come to her) for help with what is supposed to be the most natural and instinctive of acts but often is simply not.

“Once you go home from the hospital, you’re on your own with this little alien creature, and you have to figure out how to keep it alive,” Ms. Brill, 39, recalled of her daughter’s birth 16 months ago. “So you put it on your nipple and wait for it to eat, and hope all is right. But you really have no idea. Are they doing it right? Are they not doing it right? Are they eating enough? Are they starving?

“It really, really hurts to have someone sucking on your nipple like 10 times a day, partly because there is a right way and a wrong way,” Ms. Brill said. “So you call Freda, and she comes in and saves your life.”

About 74 percent of American mothers tried breast-feeding their newborns in 2006, according to the latest figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That was up from 58 percent in 1985 and 27 percent in 1970. But many struggle to make it work and give up — by three months, a third of infants were exclusively breast-fed in 2006; by six months, 14 percent.

Enter the lactation consultant. Ms. Rosenfeld was certified in 1990; there are now some 20,000 worldwide, including 582 in New York State.

She has coached novices so anxious they tried to schedule a session before giving birth (“Just enjoy being pregnant,” she counseled) and Hasidic women suddenly unable to nurse baby No. 7, 8 or 9. She has succeeded with babies with Down syndrome, despite their poor muscle tone, and with adoptive mothers, using a gizmo called a supplemental nurser to bring in their breast milk (“Isn’t that cool?” she marveled). She has rooted out problems like reflux and thyroid disorder, and stroked thousands of tiny tongues in service of “the perfect suck.” She prescribes teas and herbs to increase milk supply, along with exercise regimens for newborn mouths, and sometimes recommends that a doctor clip a baby’s frenulum, the tissue beneath the tongue. In 2007, she worked with 80 sets of twins.

“I get paid to be neurotic and hold babies,” she said. “Who could ask for more?”

A century ago virtually all American mothers nursed their babies, but by the 1950s, formula was the norm. Then a group of breast-feeding evangelists formed La Leche League to teach what they saw as a lost art, promoting its health and emotional benefits. Their efforts were helped by the natural childbirth movement of the 1970s.

As more women tried nursing, more women had problems nursing, and La Leche volunteers — many of them mothers who found breast-feeding as natural as breathing — could not always solve them. The International Board of Lactation Consultant Examiners was formed in 1985; since then, its exam has been translated into 20 languages and administered in 87 countries (more than 4,000 people took it last year).

Theirs is a beleaguered profession, on the one hand dismissed by doctors like Michel Cohen, a celebrated New York pediatrician who mocked the tongue exercises in his 2004 book “The New Basics,” on the other challenged by uncredentialed freelancers seizing on the demand for breast-feeding advice.

“These books are so black-and-white, and life is so gray,” she said en route to a client one bitter winter day. “It’s like, if this is happening, try Chapter 6, but if you really think it’s more this, try Chapter 7, because Chapter 6 might be, I don’t have enough milk, but Chapter 7 might be, my baby’s colicky, and Chapter 9 might be, like, reality check, what should I expect from a newborn? Who would want to read a book that big?”

Over the years, Ms. Rosenfeld has become less dogmatic about lactation land mines like the F-word — formula. Her credo: Rule 1, enjoy the baby. Rule 2, feed the baby.

“She doesn’t lose the mom in the process, she respects her need for sleep, etc.,” said Amy Glaser, a pediatrician in Park Slope. “But she also doesn’t give up until the mom is ready.”

After calling in a state of near panic, the Park Slope mother pulled up in front of Ms. Rosenfeld’s Victorian in the Ditmas Park section of Brooklyn. She would have been there sooner, but in the mix of sleep deprivation and flooding hormones, she had gotten confused between the $160 fee and the address, initially heading to 160 Marlborough Road.

Ms. Rosenfeld laughed, unfazed.

The baby boy, 10 days old, was crying uncontrollably every afternoon. The mother, 31, feared that a breast reduction had diminished her milk supply. Memories of the agony she felt nursing her daughter, now 2 1/2, were flooding back. “It was not a labor of love at all,” said the mother, who asked not to be named.

Ms. Rosenfeld began her customary checklist: Fertility drugs? Epidural? ( “No” might prompt a “You go, girl!”) Medications?

She put the baby on a tiny butcher’s scale, watched him nurse, weighed him again: he was several ounces heavier. Then she slipped on a glove and examined his little mouth. He pushed his tongue out past his lip, a good sign. She squeezed his cheeks, tapped his lower lip: baby mouth yoga.

After an hour, Ms. Rosenfeld advised the mother to drink two cups of raspberry leaf tea each day, starting at noon. To keep a log of her diet, to weed out possible triggers of digestive issues for the baby. To do the tongue exercises before each feeding to “open his suck,” and burp him before, during and after. And to nurse for no longer than 12 minutes on the first side, 18 on the second.

“In the hospital they’re saying let him nurse for 45 minutes,” the mother interjected, exasperated. “It makes a person a little crazy to hear two very different things from two professionals.”

Rule 1, enjoy the baby. Rule 2, feed the baby.

“If you’re going to be sitting there and not enjoying nursing because you’re counting and you’re this-ing and you’re that-ing, then what have I given you?” Ms. Rosenfeld asked. “I may have given him breast milk, but I haven’t given you an awesome breast-feeding experience, and that’s what I’m here to do.”

Aside from a year studying in Israel and another in Ohio with her husband, Howard Wallick, who works in real estate, Ms. Rosenfeld has spent her whole life in Brooklyn; she knows alternate-side parking regulations well enough that she schedules appointments in certain neighborhoods at odd times, like 10:10 or 11:35.

A religious Jew, she starts each day with morning prayers, followed by yoga and 20 minutes jumping on the trampoline in the basement. Her face is makeup-free, usually framed by dangly earrings. When things get tense in a session, she lightens the mood by cooing, making faces and uttering ridiculous nicknames like “Bu-ja-boo!”

Having raised eyebrows as a teenager by going vegetarian and swearing off soda, Ms. Rosenfeld took a job after graduating from Brooklyn College at a nutrition center for low-income women, where her devotion to breast-feeding began. “To me, the breast-feeding was not just about better health for the baby, it was about these young girls realizing their baby is important,” she said. “I had 14-year-olds, and here was my opportunity not just to make these babies healthier but to make these mothers caring parents.”

In the decades since, she has taken classes with speech therapists to better understand the mechanics of the mouth. She picks up tips from crazed mothers and calm mothers, women with serious medical problems and women with whom she has to throw up her hands and explain, “Sometimes babies just cry.” She taught a woman with one functioning arm to nurse one-handed and has, with clues that manifest themselves in breast-milk production, detected thyroid problems and retained placenta.

“Some people call themselves consultants simply on the basis that they have two breasts and maybe had a baby,” said Felina Rakowski-Gallagher, who owns the nursing supply store Upper Breast Side. “The consulting numbers have tripled in terms of people who just put their shingle out there.”

And while Ms. Rosenfeld is lionized in online forums, she has her detractors. Lisa Eisdorfer said she was disappointed in her session with Ms. Rosenfeld and gave up nursing a couple of months later, frustrated that she could not produce enough milk for her twins.

“Her name is just everywhere within the twins world and outside of it,” Ms. Eisdorfer said. “I know that she has helped a lot of people, but just not me.”

In any case, she is one of several consultants in New York with cultlike followings, some charging as much as $350. Catherine Watson Genna, based in Queens, is also the author of two well-regarded breast-feeding guidebooks, while Beverly Solow, known in certain Manhattan precincts as the Goddess of Lactation, runs several crowded support groups each month.

Ms. Rosenfeld, who relishes the good anatomical pun, said that if she were to write a book it would be called “You Suck,” but that she preferred homing in on individual cases to dispensing generalizations.

“A hundred years ago, a lot of babies we have today were not born,” she noted. “Forty-five-year-old women having babies, that didn’t happen then; now it does, and sometimes if it’s because of fertility drugs, they’re not going to have milk. I worked with a 1-pound 14-ounce baby who’s a beautiful, delicious child right now. A hundred years ago, that baby would have never survived.”

Typically, new mothers have one session in the weeks after coming home from the hospital, with follow-ups by e-mail or phone. Some call long after they get the hang of nursing, for pediatrician recommendations (“Does it have to be a Russian doctor?” Ms. Rosenfeld asked a Russian-born client the other day), advice on whether to vaccinate, even sleep training. One client recently e-mailed to ask Ms. Rosenfeld’s philosophy on night lights.

She has had celebrity clients, though sometimes Ms. Rosenfeld, who watches only one television show at a time ( “Law & Order” recently made way for “Bones” ) does not recognize them, and other times she pretends not to, because they are, as she put it, “here as a mom.” Once, though, after a client left, she broke into a gleeful chant: “I had an Oscar winner in my house! I had an Oscar winner in my house!” (No, she would not name names.)

The only trouble she had nursing her own children — now 17, 20 and 22 — was giving it up.

“My oldest stopped nursing on his first birthday, and I was crushed,” Ms. Rosenfeld said. “And my husband said, ‘You believe in baby-led weaning!’ ” The youngest hopped into their bed at age 2 and declared, “ ‘I don’t think I need to nurse anymore, Mom.’ I was like, ‘O.K., go ahead, break my heart.’ ”

Was she drinking? Was she starving? Was that a gulp or just a murmur? Was that an “I’m famished” cry or an “I’m tired” cry? And how do you burp a baby, anyway?

These were some of the questions Abby Sher found herself asking, often in a frenzy of tears, after the blissful first week of her daughter’s life ended and the reality of Week 2 set in. “Especially in Brooklyn, it’s like, ‘This is going to be another challenge that I do all naturally!’ ” she recalled thinking. “ ‘And I know other people have challenges, but not me, because I do yoga!’ ”

Ms. Sher, a writer and performer who lives in Fort Greene, dragged her husband to a breast-feeding class, where they watched videos. “He was like, ‘That was fun,’ ” she said. “ ‘Now can we please call that nice lady that we heard about?’ ”

Ms. Rosenfeld did not diagnose any disorder or perform any magic — she watched Ms. Sher nurse, plopped the baby on the scale, and showed the couple some exercises. Rule 1: Enjoy the baby. Rule 2: Feed the baby.

“It was a lot of saying things that we just needed to hear: ‘She’s O.K., she’s eating, she’s going to grow, she’s beautiful,’ ” Ms. Sher explained. “She’s really just somebody everyone should be near after giving birth. It’s almost like she’s breast-feeding you.”

Leba Ringel, a Hasidic birthing coach, nursed eight children successfully, but when her ninth was born in 1998, she found her milk had dried up because of medication she took for pneumonia during her pregnancy. Ms. Rosenfeld taught Mrs. Ringel how to use a supplemental nurser — a tube taped to the nipple that dispenses formula, teaching the baby to suck for sustenance and, in the process, building up the mother’s supply. Mrs. Ringel, 51, not only now recommends Ms. Rosenfeld to her own clients, but also pays for a consultation with her each time a daughter or daughter-in-law gives birth for the first time. (Three so far.)

“ ‘Freda’ is a household word in our house,” she said.

Ms. Rosenfeld has consulted via e-mail with mothers as far away as Chicago, Hawaii and Switzerland, and has peered into the cultures of the world from her perch in Brooklyn. One small discovery: The belief that almonds enhance breast-milk production is cross-cultural.

“I’ve had Inuits from Alaska, I’ve had a couple from Nepal, I’ve had Japanese, Chinese — they all say almonds,” Ms. Rosenfeld mused. “Can I prove it? No. But I like almonds, so why not?”