1. Allow ultrasound technicians to “date” your pregnancy, see if you have twins, check the growth of your baby. Even one ultrasound affects your baby’s brain. Multiple ultrasounds will move cells in the brain around and also affect future generations of your family.
2. Eat whatever you like in pregnancy. Don’t take the time and trouble to study the effects of over-processed, high fat diets. Don’t worry about buying organic produce and meat.
3. Let your physician induce you. Induction drugs over-ride Nature’s pace of the birth process. They cause prolonged periods of oxygen deprivation similar to holding a pillow over your child’s face. Any form of hurrying you into the birth process or, once into it, hurrying the process faster than it goes naturally will damage cells in the baby’s brain.
4. Take pain-killing drugs during your child’s birth. Every anesthetic goes immediately to the baby so choose whatever one you like. The longer the baby is medicated, the more brain damage is done.
5. Continue on with the interventions in birth by having a cesarean, forceps or vacuum pull out of your baby. None of these procedures are gentle. All involve incredible traction on the baby’s neck and head. Sometimes all three are used on the same baby. Risks of all 3 are increased when inductions and epidurals were brought into the birth.
6. Once your baby is born, feed him/her solutions made by pharma giants like Mead Johnson.
7. Be sure to inject your baby with every toxic pharmaceutical vaccine that your doctor recommends. Don’t do any research. 36 vaccines is the modern North American child’s recommended allotment of mercury preserved toxic waste.
For more information on childhood autism go to Non Toxic Childhood.
Raine Study on the importance of Breastfeeding for mental development.
Don’t forget that bathing the newborn in a toxic chemical mixture designed to *gently cleanse* will also contribute to that newborn’s chemical body burden through skin absorption. This may also contribute to autism and other permanent, and now common, childhood disorders.
Don’t forget: Allow your health care provider to clamp your baby’s umbilical cord as soon as he is delivered. Make sure that your baby is dried, weighed, measured, thoroughly inspected, and injected with vitamin K immediately after birth. Have this done before holding the baby.
dont forget to make mcdonald’s your baby’s first food! they make SUCH a cute face the first time you feed them coke.
you are posting dangerous misinformation that will worry vulnerable women and cause guilt in the lives of those with autisitc children based on no evidence at all. these people have problems enough without you smugly posting nonsense like this. you should be ashamed of yourself.
“dangerous”, “smug”, and shaming—the kind of accusations that usually silence women. Not this one. Thanks for expressing yourself, Isabel (and others who basically said the same thing). I put your comment up so that my readers can see the backlash that means you’ve hit the mark with someone.
It would help us all if you could post citations to the research that backs up your claims, particularly the ultrasound effects.
1. Ann Oakley, “The History of Ultrasonography in Obstetrics,” Birth 13, no. 1 (1986): 8-13.
2. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, “Routine Ultrasound in Low-Risk Pregnancy, ACOG Practice Patterns: Evidence-Based Guidelines for Clinical Issues,” Obstetrics and Gynecology 5 (August 1997).
3. O. Olsen et al., “Routine Ultrasound Dating Has Not Been Shown to Be More Accurate Than the Calendar Method,” Br J Obstet Gynaecol 104, no. 11 (1997): 1221-1222.
4. H. Kieler, O. Axelsson, S. Nilsson, and U. Waldenstrom, “Comparison of Ultrasonic Measurement of Biparietal Diameter and Last Menstrual Period as a Predictor of Day of Delivery in Women with Regular 28-Day Cycles,” Acta-Obstet-Gynecol-Scand 75, no. 5 (1993): 347-349.
5. B. G. Ewigman, J. P. Crane, F. D. Frigoletto et al., “Effect of Prenatal Ultrasound Screening on Perinatal Outcome,” N Engl J Med 329, no. 12 (1993): 821-827.
6. C. A. Luck, “Value of Routine Ultrasound Scanning at 19 Weeks: A Four Year Study of 8849 Deliveries,” British Medical Journal 34, no. 6840 (1992): 1474-1478.
7. F. Y. Chan, “Limitations of Ultrasound,” paper presented at Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand 1st Annual Congress, Freemantle, 1997.
8. AIMS UK, “Ultrasound Unsound?,” AIMS UK Journal 5, no. 1 (Spring 1993).
9. I. R. Brand, P. Kaminopetros, M. Cave et al., “Specificity of Antenatal Ultrasound in the Yorkshire Region: A Prospective Study of 2261 Ultrasound Detected Anomalies,” Br J Obstet Gynaecal 101, no. 5 (1994): 392-397.
10. J. W. Sparling, J. W. Seeds, and D. C. Farran, “The Relationship of Obstetric Ultrasound to Parent and Infant Behavior,” Obstet Gynecol 72, no. 6 (1988): 902-907.
11. A. Brookes, “Women’s Experience of Routine Prenatal Ultrasound,” Healthsharing Women: The Newsletter of Healthsharing Women’s Health Resource Service (Melbourne, Australia) 5, no.s 3, 4 (December 1994-March 1995).
12. MIDIRS, Informed Choice for Professionals, Ultrasound Screening in the First Half of Pregnancy: Is It Useful for Everyone? (UK: MIDIRS and the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, 1996).
13. A. Saari-Kemppainen, O. Karjalainen, P. Ylostalo et al., “Ultrasound Screening and Perinatal Mortality: Controlled Trial of Systematic One-stage Screening in Pregnancy,” The Lancet 336, no. 8712 (1990): 387-391.
14. D. Watkins, “An Alternative to Termination of Pregnancy,” The Practitioner 233, no. 1472 (1989): 990, 992.
15. “American Institute of Ultrasound Medicine Bioeffects Report 1988,” J Ultrasound Med 7 (September 1988): S1-S38.
16. D. Liebeskind, R. Bases, F. Elequin et al., “Diagnostic Ultrasound: Effects on the DNA and Growth Patterns of Animal Cells,” Radiology 131, no. 1 (1979): 177-184.
17. M. H. Ellisman, D. E. Palmer, and M. P. Andre, “Diagnostic Levels of Ultrasound May Disrupt Myelination,” Experimental Neurology 98, no. 1 (1987): 78-92.
18. Brennan et al., “Shadow of Doubt,” New Scientist 12 (June 1999): 23.
19. J. Testart, A. Thebalt, E. Souderis, and R. Frydman, “Premature Ovulation after Ovarian Ultrasonography,” Br J Obstet Gynaecol 89, no. 9 (1982): 694-700.
20. R. P. Lorenz, C. H. Comstock, S. F. Bottoms, and S. R. Marx, “Randomised Prospective Trial Comparing Ultrasonography and Pelvic Examination for Preterm Labor Surveillance,” Am J Obstet Gynecol 162, no. 6 (1990): 1603-1610.
21. J. Newnham, S. F. Evans, C. A. Michael et al., “Effects of Frequent Ultrasound During Pregnancy: A Randomised Controlled Trial,” The Lancet 342, no. 8876 (1993): 887-891.
22. S. B. Thacker, “The Case of Imaging Ultrasound in Obstetrics: A Review,” Br J Obstet Gynaecol 92, no. 5 (1985): 437-444.
23. J. P. Newnham et al., “Doppler Flow Velocity Wave Form Analysis in High Risk Pregnancies: A Randomised Controlled Trial,” Br J Obstet Gynaecol 98, no. 10 (1991): 956-963.
24. C. R. Stark, M. Orleans, A. D. Havercamp et al., “Short and Long Term Risks after Exposure to Diagnostic Ultrasound in Utero,” Obstet Gynecol 63 (1984): 194-200.
25. J. D. Campbell et al., “Case-control Study of Prenatal Ultrasonography in Children with Delayed Speech,” Can Med Ass J 149, no. 10 (1993): 1435- 1440.
26. K. A. Salvesen, L. J. Vatten, S. H. Eik-nes et al., “Routine Ultrasonography in Utero and Subsequent Handedness and Neurological Development,” British Medical Journal 307, no. 6897 (1993) 159-164.
27. H. Kieler, O. Axelsson, B. Haguland et al., “Routine Ultrasound Screening in Pregnancy and the Children’s Subsequent Handedness,” Early Human Development 50, no. 2 (1998): 233-245.
28. K. A. Salvesen, L. S. Bakketeig, S. H. Eik-nes et al., “Routine Ultrasonography in Utero and School Performance at Age 8-9 Years,” The Lancet 339, no. 8785 (1992):85-89.
29. H. Kieler, G. Ahlsten, B. Haguland et al., “Routine Ultrasound Screening in Pregnancy and the Children’s Subsequent Neurological Development,” Obstet Gynecol 91, no. 5 (1998): 750-756.
30. H. B. Meire, “The Safety of Diagnostic Ultrasound,” Br J Obstet Gynaecol 94 (1987): 1121-1122.
31. K. J. W. Taylor, “A Prudent Approach to Ultrasound Imaging of the Fetus and Newborn,” Birth 17, no. 4 (1990): 218-223.
32. https://www.asrt.org/content/News/IndustryNewsBriefs/Sono/studyshows062408.aspx
Sonography
Study Shows Potential Dangers of Ultrasound in Fetal Development
Aug. 24, 2006
exerpt
Because ultrasound energy is a high-frequency mechanical vibration, researchers hypothesized that it might influence the migration of neurons in a developing fetus. Neurons in mammals multiply early in fetal development and then migrate to their final destinations. Any interference or disruption in the process could result in abnormal brain function.> end of exerpt
The quote above is from the reporter’s summary, not the article itself.
If I may fire back another quote from the same source:
Dr. Rakic emphasized that the study does not mean that ultrasound use on human fetuses for appropriate diagnostic and medical purposes should be abandoned.
“On the contrary: ultrasound has been shown to be very beneficial in the medical context,” he said.
I see where people are coming from with concerns that this might be putting guilt and shame on mothers of autistic children. I have my suspicions about some things that might cause or contribute to autism, but nobody really knows why it happens and it’s possibly unfair to state as fact that these seven things are a recipe for autism.
it sort of brings back the days when autism was thought to be caused by “refrigerator mothers”. it’s always the mother’s fault! faulty mothers! kwim?
anyway, the things on that list are undoubtedly harmful in countless ways to babies as well as their mothers (except you’re aware I have reservations about the anti-vax movement), and are to be avoided. but there are people who have dedicated their entire career to finding out what causes autism, and even they pretty much have no idea. they have lots of guesses and theories, but it’s very hard to prove any of them or even test them. true?
it’s not possible to do a randomized controlled study of everything that could possibly affect a developing brain! obviously not everything has to be scientifically proven that way, but in this case I dont think our speculation can be the basis for blaming anything/anyone for hurting these children.
“It’s always the mothers fault”. I have often gotten so annoyed by other studies that ‘blame’ the mother. But – this is where I have been left with my annoyance. If the mother isn’t responsible for her pregnancy, who is? The father? Her primary caregiver? (midwife, doctor) her family? her community?
I realised in the end, that I like being in charge adn you call me a control freak if you will but when I’m pregnant I’m responsible for what I put in my mouth and who (or what) comes near my belly and vagina.
I like that list. It’s a start and the title is a good way to really make a point. Stay away from technology and drugs, eat well and grow a healthy baby. My kind of list.
the mother is certainly responsible for the health of her child and making the best effort to put only good things in her body during pregnancy and the birth. I agree that it’s really stupid to assume that it’s fine to eat fast food through your pregnancy and have limitless interventions in your birth, decide not to breastfeed and then expect a perfectly healthy child.
to me that doesnt mean it’s also the mother’s responsibility if the child she loves gets a disorder that may or may not have been caused by her actions. you just cant say that autism is the mother’s fault. it’s unknown.
Im pretty sure you could find some moms out there who have made a good effort to keep their baby healthy, and still their child is diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder.
Thanks for this and your interesting web page. Unfortunately most people by some reason get offended by something like this. I´m pregnant and very much into looking at alternatives in birth and child rearing but sense that all that is provoking to people. It´s amazing how narrow minded people are and so totally into buying everything the authorities say. I feel like I have to keep to myself my plans of for example home-birth and not getting so many vaccines.
Sylvia’s post is a good reminder that one should indeed be skeptical about sources of information – even the authorities. A single authority can be untrustworthy – Andrew Wakefield is a classic example.
However, there is such a thing as a scientific consensus, which exists across many different companies, countries and cultures. The consensus amongst those who have the time and resources to dedicate to this research is that autism is not linked to vaccines, but has a strong genetic link. I don’t understand why this consensus amongst experts in the field is given short shrift. When you’re caring for your child, isn’t expert help exactly what you need?
In my meager spare time (meager because I’m a father of two healthy boys who between them score 13 out of a possible 14 on the recipe above), I am still plowing through the references given above re: ultrasound. The ones I have managed to access so far are ones that question the accuracy of ultrasound for dating and prediction. However, these seem irrelevant to me since they show no evidence of any harm, let alone any specific effects related to autism.
Oh, and I would like to highlight that you have changed the name of the article from “7 Step Recipe for an Autistic Child”. May I ask why? Has anything else changed?
the new title sits better with me. I think it’s more accurate.
I wish every mother put more thought into everything they put into their pregnant body and every procedure they allowed.
you know, Im a bit past 40 weeks preg now and Ive had people ask me about when Im getting induced (!) and many of them arent even aware that it’s my right to refuse induction!!!! these are young women who’ve had babies and they are unaware that they could have said no! that is frightening to think that these women believe they do not own their bodies anymore as soon as they are pregnant. SCARY!
on an aside, I wonder what they’d say if they knew the list of things Ive refused in the last few months! lol
Amy, I am happy that people have a choice to refuse specific medical interventions, and that you are doing well with your pregnancy. (Congratulations, by the way.)
I am less happy with scaremongering about treatments and procedures that appear to be very safe and have few side effects.
I am very unhappy with the continuing myth (debunked again and again) that vaccines cause more harm to children than the diseases they prevent, and that the best people to advise on this issue are celebrities rather than the wide consensus of medical experts across different countries and cultures.
Vaccination is also important to invoke herd immunity, to protect those that cannot yet be immunized. The highest profile victim of the lack of herd immunity caused by the anti-vax movement is Dana Elizabeth McCaffery, a four-week old baby who died a terrible and entirely preventable death due to pertussis in Australia.
you know, sean I actually agree with you about the vaccine thing. Ive fully vaccinated my kids and I see it as safe. I know lots of people disagree with me, but I feel very much more comfortable with the pro vaccine propaganda than the anti vaccine propaganda! when it comes to doing vaccine research I have found it hard to sort out the blatant lies from the facts. therefore, I just go with what my gut tells me. anyway, I agree with you on that one just so you know.
but as far as the other things, they are not really harmless.
the ultrasound hasnt been proven SAFE, and it’s quite unnecessary, especially for the “routine screening”. I chose not to have one not because Im convinced that it will harm my baby (although that is very possible…just unknown)but because I think it’s an invasion of my baby’s privacy and sacred space inside me. also, I think that in most cases the diagnoses that could be made from ultrasound would not be useful or result in better care for me and baby. I would not under any circumstance abort my child, so its really not useful for me to know in advance of hte birth if they have some kind of horrible genetic problem.
my best friend had a child stillborn last january, and the baby’s problem was diagnosed via ultrasound and amniocentesis in november. there was absolutely nothing they could do to improve the baby’s chances (as is the case almost all of the time) and so she spent the last months of her pregnancy as a complete wreck. I think that kind of stress has a bad effect on an already delicate baby, and I decided then that I would not even want to know if it were my child. knowing in advance didnt make it any easier for her! you can ask her, she’ll tell you that.
anyway, ultrasounds to me = potentially harmful, definitely invasive and useless. I wont be having any, thanks.
actually Im pretty sure that even the ACOG doesnt recommend routine screening ultrasounds the way they use them. correct me if Im wrong.
http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/01/polly-tommey-of-autism-file-magazine-on-discredited-defamation-of-dr-andrew-wakefield.html
This is an excellent blog post by Polly Tommey of the U.K. on the systematic attack on Dr. Andrew Wakefield and the intimidation of those who would speak up about the autism/vaccine link. The questions she asks about who benefits from this character assassination are worth contemplating.
My personal opinions on the questions raised in the link above…
“Why is it so important that Dr. Wakefield is seen to be discredited?”
Because he is spreading dangerous misinformation.
“Whom is it important to?”
People who believe that public health (and especially the health of children) is important.
“Who stands to gain from this?”
Children who will no longer be at risk from serious childhood disease.
“Who will lose out if the truth is revealed?”
Dr Wakefield, and the anti-vaccination movement.
“What is it that people are so frightened of?”
A lack of herd immunity, putting their children at risk before they can be vaccinated.
“What is it they don’t want us to know?”
Dangerous misinformation?
Anyway, all of this is a red herring. Regardless of this one person, Dr Wakefield, there have been many studies that show no link between autism and vaccines.
http://www.14studies.org/
By reading and analyzing every published study used to “prove” vaccines do not cause autism, this website will show you that:
- No real world studies of the vaccine schedule have ever been done. Of the 11 separate vaccines given to American children (many given multiple times), only one vaccine — the MMR — has ever been studied for its relationship to autism. Yet, American children get 6 or 7 different vaccines simultaneously at 2, 4, 6, and 12 month doctor appointments.
- Not one study compares vaccinated children to unvaccinated children — every study only looks at children who have received vaccines. This is like comparing smokers who smoke one pack a day to those who smoke two packs a day, seeing no difference in cancer rates, and saying cigarettes don’t cause cancer.
- The studies are rife with conflicts including authors who have been paid by vaccine companies and federal agencies and foreign governments charged with administering vaccines.
- Many of the studies reach false conclusions or conclusions that have nothing to do with the simple question: do vaccines cause autism? They are simply being misrepresented in the press by public health officials taking advantage of a docile media that is heavily dependent on advertising from pharma companies.
We’ve been warned since the 1980s that vaccines are a medical time bomb.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14937
Pingback: Where to Begin? « Life With my Kids
Pingback: Discussing Autism Prevention: Where to Begin? « Life With my Kids
Don’t forget to circumcise your son to really scramble his developing brain. Circumcision spikes cortisol levels that never return to normal, and has been repeatedly shown to negatively impact parent-child bonding, breastfeeding and future pain responses.
I’m not anti-vax, but I’m careful about the number, type and content of immunizations. The current “required” roster of vaccinations is clearly overboard.
Re: the poster that is suggesting unvaccinated individuals are responsible for the fatal case of pertussis in an infant… A baby is just as likely, if not more likely to contract pertussis from someone who is vaccinated. There are many, many cases of pertussis in vaccinated individuals, because the vaccine is not completely effective and also the immunity wears off over time. What often happens is that the vaccinated person, often an adolescent or adult, contracts pertussis but does not have the characteristic symptoms and goes undiagnosed but is quite able to spread the disease. An unvaccinated individual is more likely to seek treatment and be diagnosed. If the diagnosis is made more quickly, antibiotic treatment can be given which reduces the spread of the disease.
My birth story with my Asperger’s son. http://crunchynurse.blogspot.com/2010/04/from-nurse-to-gentle-birth-advocate.html The second edition will be coming soon, precipitous pit induction at 38 weeks, my second child.