Amy and I live in neighboring towns, so we have been working on getting our airfares, so we can fly to New York together.  While we were exchanging e-mails yesterday, she asked if I heard that Stouffer’s, who is owned by Nestle, was now listed as one of BlogHer’s ’10 sponsors?  I had seen a tag-line or two on it, but had not had time to read up on it.  Amy sent me Annie’s, from PhD. in Parenting, blog post, on this subject. 

As I read Annie’s post and did a bit more research myself, my excitement over BlogHer ’10 turned to disappointment.  Nestle is one of the most boycotted companies worldwide since 1970, for engaging in many questionable ethical business practices.  I personally have an issue with their constant efforts and marketing to undermine breastfeeding.  I avoid buying anything Nestle when at all possible.  Like Annie though, I don’t question others about it, or ask my friends if the chocolate chip cookies they made contains Nestle chocolate.  Like most big businesses, it is nearly impossible to avoid Nestle and their brands completely. 

Eating a chocolate chip cookie from a friend is different though, when faced with the knowledge the conference that I really want to attend is being paid for in part, by Nestle.  Another dilemma I have is my conference tickets were wait-listed.  BlogHer specifically said if they were able to get more sponsors, then more tickets would be available.  Nestle was not listed as an original sponsor. It isn’t too far of a reach to conclude the reason I even got a ticket in part, is because of Nestle’s sponsorship.  

I am frustrated that BlogHer would even consider, let alone accept Nestle as a sponsor.  I accept advertising for my blog through BlogHer, but I have specifically opted out of accepting any formula companies, such as Nestle.  BlogHer is aware of the boycott and the issues surrounding Nestle.  I would have rather not received a wait-listed ticket, and not have been able to attend the conference, than attend with this now black cloud of controversy surrounding it.

It bothers me BlogHer, which supports women in so many aspects, accepted Nestle as a sponsor, when their business practices hurt so many women and their children, especially the most vulnerable in developing countries. 

As a member of the American Cancer Society Blogger Advisory Council, there is an event in New York the day before BlogHer, they are sponsoring for me.  I will be in New York to attend that event.  That is a silver lining- I will be able to see firsthand some wonderful programs the American Cancer Society has, and have no moral quandaries about participating in it.

I wrote my beliefs about the blogging event Nestle hosted last October, and the responsibility we have as bloggers. Two sentences I wrote jumped out at me as I re-read my own words, in light of this dilemma:   

…as bloggers, we need to be responsible to something greater than just a company’s marketing campaigns.

People turn to blogs for honest and trust-worthy information.  If we allow ourselves to be “bought” by any and every company that comes a-callin’ should we be surprised when our collective reputation as a source of unbiased, accurate, and honest information is tarnished and eventually weakened?

Do I attend BlogHer and justify the reasons for myself?  How can I stand by what I wrote about being “bought” when for all practical purposes, I am doing the same thing, now that I am aware Nestle is a sponsor? 

There are bloggers who are boycotting Nestle who are still going to attend, and try to raise awareness on this issue. Others are boycotting BlogHer ’10.  That is their personal decision they have every right to make for themselves.  I am not saying they are right or wrong, but I am going to have to decide for myself what the right decision is.

I have missed BlogHer every year, and right now I feel I could missboycott BlogHer ’10 because Nestle is a sponsor, and I would be fine.  Yes, I’d be bummed, and I would miss out on a lot of good information, community, friends, and fun.  But I would also be able to know without a doubt, I did not compromise on an issue I feel very strongly about when it mattered.  Integrity is easy to maintain, when there is no pressure to maintain it. 

I am considering all my options, and will make a decision soon.  I have spent the last three and a half years, building a loyal readership of my blog, and I appreciate every reader I have.  I feel I have a responsibility to my readers as well.  I don’t want to be a blogger who writes about how important breastfeeding is to babies, women, and our society, and then attends a conference sponsored in part, by one of the biggest companies who undermines it on a global scale. 

One truth is the swing of the sentence, the beat and poise, but down deeper it’s the integrity of the writer as he matches with the language~ Don DeLillo

On February 2, 2010 California Watch, published a story about California’s maternal mortality rate.  It reported the maternal mortality rate in California had increased from 4.3 deaths per 100,000 births in 1996 to 16.9 deaths per 100,000 births in 2006 (the last year statistics are available).

The article cites some factors that are thought to be contributing to this upward trend, and it was not a surprise to me to read that C-sections, and repeat C-sections are one of the main factors officials are finally now considering for the increase in deaths.   The article points out that C-sections are now the number one surgical procedure performed in the United States.

How can California, have such a high maternity mortality rate?  One would think, after the way modern medicine is used in birth today, that the opposite would be true.  This trend is actually not just being seen in California- the entire US maternity mortality rate has also been increasing to the point that it is worse than in some developing countries.  As of 2007, the United States ranked 41st in maternity mortality out of 171 countries.

Officials are now conceding that the increasing C-section rate, might have something to do with the maternal mortality death rate.  As the California Watch article points out, “doctors face a condition called placenta accreta, where the placenta grows into the scar left by a previous C-section. In surgery, doctors must find and suture a web of twisted placental vessels snaking into the patient’s abdomen, which can hemorrhage alarming amounts of blood. Often, doctors must remove the uterus.”

Along these lines, while researching this blog post, I came across an interesting report from The Joint Commission dated January 10, 2010 on preventing maternal death.  It cited a study by the CDC which listed the six leading causes of maternal deaths between 1991 and 1997. The second leading cause was was hemorrhaging, causing 17% of the deaths. The fourth cause was infection at 13%.   The report goes on to identify and cites two out of the four common preventable errors that lead to death were: failure to pay attention to vital signs following a C- section, and hemorrhaging following a C-section.

It is interesting that a leading cause of maternal death is hemorrhaging, and one of the most common errors that leads to death is hemorrhaging after a C-section. The CDC reported on these findings thirteen years ago, and officials are just now seriously considering there could be a link between C-sections and a significant rise in the maternal death rate?   It doesn’t seem like this has been a hidden fact, or that the research wasn’t being done.  This seems more like a case where statistics and research has been emerging for years, but has been largely ignored or brushed off by medical officials.  Until now.  When California’s maternal death rate is worse than some countries like Bosnia or South Korea.

I have my own theory that the higher a state’s C-section rate is, the higher the maternal death rate will be.  While the CDC reports on the C-section rate for every state, not every state publishes their maternal death rates.  I could only come up with an handful of state statistics for 2006 on maternal death rates.  It’s not enough to draw a definite conclusion.  But consider that  Pennsylvania had 19 maternal deaths and their C-section rate was 29.7 percent.  Washington had 20 maternal deaths and their C-section rate was 28.4 percent.  Compare that to California who had 95 maternal deaths and a 31.3 percent C-section rate, and Texas, who had 90 maternal deaths with a 33.2 percent C-section rate.

It’s no secret that other countries who have lower C-section rates also have lower maternal death rates.  In Ireland for instance, the C-section rate averages around 21 percent.  A joint UN/WHO report in 2007 found that Ireland also had the lowest maternal death rate in the world for women dying during or after pregnancy.  Only one out of 47,600 women died, compared with one in 4,800 in the United States.  The C-section rate in the United States in 2006 was 31.1 percent.  It has been projected (but not confirmed yet) that the C-section rate in the US for 2007 will be 31.8 percent.

The California Watch article tells of a medical director in California, Dr. David Lagrew, who in 2002, banned elective inductions at his facility before 41 weeks  or pregnancy, except in rare incidents.  Inductions more than double the chances of C-sections.  The article says,  “as a result, Lagrew said, the operating room schedules opened up, and the hospital saw fewer babies admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit, fewer hemorrhages and fewer hysterectomies.” (bold print mine)

This should have been great news, but as expected, the hospital lost money.   On average a C-section costs twice as much as a vaginal birth.  Yet, we are constantly told that revenue has nothing to do with the increasing C-section rates.  It is because the C-section is “medically necessary.”

If Dr. Lagrew was able to decrease “medically necessary” C-sections in California, right when the maternal death rate was increasing, it ought to be done elsewhere. If Ireland can have the lowest maternal death rate in the world, despite not having all the technological advances that the United States has, and has a considerably lower C-section rate than the United States, that should tell all the officials out there who are trying to figure out why the maternal death rates are increasing, that C-sections are a significant factor in maternal death rates.

It is the white elephant the medical community, and hospitals in general won’t admit, despite research pointing them in this direction for years-decades in some instances.  And yet, the C-section rate continues to climb, and more women are dying during pregnancy and childbirth.

I looked up the modern version of the Hippocartic Oath that doctors take upon graduation.  After reading these, it is hard to be convinced that most doctors have these oaths in mind in regards to C-sections and births in the United States:

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon’s knife or the chemist’s drug.

I will not be ashamed to say “I know not,…”

and the last one:

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

Maybe it is as simple as that.  Maybe if more doctors and hospitals realized a woman’s body is capable in most cases of giving birth without surgery, and let their bodies do what they are capable of doing-just like Dr. Lagrew did, maternal mortality rates would drop in our country. Maybe when ”Big Business” gets out of the birthing process, C-section rates will decline, improving maternal health.

The answers to solving the increasing maternal death rate are out there, and have been for years. The question that demands an answer is, when will the majority of the medical community stop ignoring the answers?

I was concerned when the outbreak of H1N1, or swine flu occurred last April.  Like many parents, I worried about my children catching the virus.  In April there was no vaccine for H1N1.  As I researched it, most experts recommended hand washing was the best way to protect yourself and children from the flu.  I also came across statistics that said more people die of the regular flu virus yearly, than what would be expected from the H1N1 virus. 

Since it was the end of flu season in April, I decided the chances of us catching it, were pretty slim.  Fast forward six months later, and we are at the start of regular flu season, and now there is a vaccine for H1N1. What is a parent to do?  Just some of the questions that have crossed my mind are: Do kids really need the regular flu shot, and the H1N1 vaccine too?  Would a flu vaccine even help against every strain of the regular flu?  Will the H1N1 vaccine cause children to develop swine flu?   Will our natural immune systems develop immunity to these viruses without the vaccine? 

I have followed a delayed schedule for the childhood vaccinations for both Ryan and Cole.  It is my opinion that children are over vaccinated today.  I have talked to the children’s doctor extensively about this, and have done my own research on the subject over the years.  Often, the long range effects of vaccines are unknown.   

It makes me nervous to vaccinate my children with the H1N1 vaccine because it is such a new vaccine.  I watched a news story the other night, on a local news station where a doctor said there was nothing to worry about with the H1N1 vaccine, because it wasn’t much different from a regular flu vaccine.  He then added that most of the scientists who developed the vaccine tried it out on themselves while developing it. While that is noble, an adults system (I’m assuming the researchers were all adults) is fully developed, while a child’s system is not.  What are the long-term effects of this vaccine when given to children?  No one can answer this question-yet.  

Yesterday Ryan’s school sent home an information sheet on H1N1, and said they would be offering vaccine clinics.  It is not mandatory,  It said that the students will be vaccinated in one of two ways: “by an intramuscular injection, or in the form a “flumist,” nasal spray.”  It depends on what they receive from state and federal authorities.  As I read further, it said that children under the age of 10, will need to receive a second dose of the vaccine, a month after the first dose, to “assure full immunity.”  I looked this up on the CDC’s website, and it is confirmed by the CDC. 

Another issue that the school district raised was the vaccines contain thimerosal.  It warned parents that any child who was sensitive to thimerosal, should not receive the vaccine.  They described thimerosal as ”a substance used as an antiseptic and germ killer.  While this is partly true, they failed to mention that thimerosal is a byproduct of mercury.  Mercury is a neurotoxin (when it is in the form of methyl mercury).  There are no levels of mercury considered “safe” in the human body.  Thimerosal is an ethyl mercury, which is chemically different from methyl mercury. However, the CDC says this about thimerosal:

Since 2001, no new vaccine licensed by FDA for use in children has contained thimerosal as a preservative, and all vaccines routinely recommended by CDC for children under six years of age have been thimerosal-free, or contain only trace amounts, except for multi-dose formulations of influenza vaccine. This was done as a precautionary step and not because there was evidence confirming that thimerosal-containing vaccines were causing health problems. The most recent and rigorous scientific research does not support the hypothesis that thimerosal-containing vaccines are harmful.

From my previous research I discovered thimerosal was approved with very little research by the FDA in the 1940′s. In recent years, thousands and thousands of parents have called into question thimerosal’s safety, with some experts and parents pointing to thimerosal laced vaccines as a cause for autism, and vaccine-injuries. While there has not been scientific proof of this yet, the theory will not go away.  In March, 2008 I wrote a blog post citing the story government health officials conceded that childhood vaccines caused autism-like symptoms in a Georgia girl, and she should be rewarded from a federal vaccine-injury fund.

This raises the question, does the potential of being harmed by thimerosal outweigh the protection the H1N1 vaccine could provide?  The symptoms of H1N1, cited by the CDC are:

The symptoms of 2009 H1N1 flu virus in people include fever, cough, sore throat, runny or stuffy nose, body aches, headache, chills and fatigue. Some people may have vomiting and diarrhea. People may be infected with the flu, including 2009 H1N1 and have respiratory symptoms without a fever. Severe illnesses and deaths have occurred as a result of illness associated with this virus.

Obviously, I take notice of the “severe illness and death” warning.  However, the children’s doctor, who has been a doctor for over 25 years, isn’t even offering the H1N1 vaccine, because usally the symptoms are so mild.  Looking into the statistics, aaccording to the CDC, between August 30, and October 10, 2009 the death toll from H1N1 in the age group of 0-4 years old was 3%, and in the 5-18 year old group it was 14%.  The 50-64 age group had the highest death rate with 32%. 

Additionally, the seasonal flu vaccine only protects against one strain of the flu, and there are many strains possible.  Having a seasonal flu shot does not guarantee that you will not get the flu.  Seasonal flu shots also contain thimerosal.   

These statistics and facts bring me to the conclusion, while current research does not show a definite link between thimerisol/mercury vaccines and autism or vaccine injury, the proof that they don’t injure, is not conclusive enough for me.  Having reservations anyway about the H1N1 vaccine, and then discovering that my children would need two doses of the thimerosal-containing vaccine, is the nail in the coffin.  I think the potential risk of the unknown long-term effects from the H1N1 vaccine and the fact that contains thimerosal, has the potential to do more damage than catching the virus itself. 

I also believe the body’s immune system is amazing, if it is given the chance.  If it is over-run with many foreign substances, like vaccines, especially with children, how can it operate as it was intended? 

There are other alternatives, like following a good hand washing schedule, and a proper diet, that can help build the body’s immunity and ward off illness. Dr. Nicole Sundene, a licensed Naturopathic Physician maintains the blog, Kitchen Table Medicine, which has a very informative article on swine flu, and also what you can do to help prevent it.   

Every parent has to make the choice for their family, but not every vaccine that is available is right for every child, or family. I wanted to make an informed knowledge-based choice regarding these vaccines, not one based in fear or on media-hype.  I chose to share what I have discovered in hopes it can help other parents who are trying to make the best decision for their families too.

I am NOT up on all the companies in the USA’s business practices, ethical standards, marketing campaigns, or boycotts against them.  However, as a blogger who others turn to for information, I make it a point to be as informed as I can when writing about a topic.  If I were invited by a company to attend their social media event as a blogger, I would be compelled to find out what I could about that company and make sure I could support them in line with my personal beliefs.  I don’t understand how any blogger could do any less. (I am NOT pointing a finger at the Nestle Family blogger attendees, but stating a general comment.)    

The issues surrounding this event have taught me that as bloggers, we need to be responsible to something greater than just a company’s marketing campaigns.  If a blogger does their research and can still support Nestle (for example) then fine- that is their decision, but they should be able to explain why they support a company on the major issues. 

In my opinion, if you are attending a conference as a blogger at ANY business, or corporation, you should be informed on their background.  Simply saying you weren’t aware that the company did this, or you didn’t know the company had issues against them is not responsible, it is the easy way out, and creates distrust among the blogging community and the readers. 

No two people will ever see every issue exactly the same- that is what makes blogging great and builds our community.  Thousands of thousands of people turn to our blogs every day for correct, accurate, and trustworthy information.  We have an obligation and a responsiblity to ourselves and to our readers to be honest, and to do our due diligence not only on the topics we write about, but also with the companies we choose to align ourselves and associate with. 

The Nestle issue has shown me that to do any less than this is not acceptable to me as blogger. One reason blogs are so successful is because so many people don’t trust companies and traditional advertising anymore.  People turn to blogs for honest and trust-worthy information.  If we allow ourselves to be “bought” by any and every company that comes a-callin’ should we be surprised when our collective reputation as a source of unbiased, accurate, and honest information is tarnished and eventually weakened?  

In the case with the Nestle incident, our opinions, beliefs, and reputations as bloggers are worth more than a few hosted blogging events by a corporation that has been one of the most boycotted companies for questionable ethical business practices worldwide since the 1970’s. 

The handwriting is on the wall- what the blogging community chooses to learn from the Nestle incident is up to us. 

I posted this quote on Twitter last night after reading up on the Nestle issue, and I think it sums it all up:

“The superior man understands what is right; the inferior man understands what will sell.”- Confucius

This is a tribute to Nurul Haq Miah, for Project 2996, in honor of the victims who lost their lives on September 11, 2001. 

Naurul Haq Miah was known as Miah to his friends, and co-workers.  Miah was born in Bengladesh on June 2, 1966.  He came to the United States in 1985 when he was 21. He married Shakila Yasmin (pictured above with Miah) on April 2, 2000.

Miah had worked for Marsh & McLennan for about 15 years as an audiovisual technician.  He was in Tower One, on the 99th floor, attending a meeting when the first plane, American Airlines Flight 11, crashed into the building.

What was even more heartbreaking for me to discover was Miah’s wife, Shakila, was at work on the 97th floor of Tower One, when the plane crashed, and she died too. They had only been married a year-and-a-half.  They were the only known couple who both died on September 11th.  In 2006, they were honored by the United States when the southeast corner of the 3rd Avenue and Ovington Avenue in New York was renamed after Shakila Yasmin and Nurul Haque Miah. 

When trying to decide how to honor Mr. Miah, facts and statistics only tell so much.  I obviously never met him, but I found heart-felt words from people who had the pleasure of knowing Mr. Miah and his wife. 

I discovered through their words that Miah always had a smile for his friends.  So many people spoke of his positive and upbeat attitude.  He was an avid outdoors man, who enjoyed camping, fishing, and hunting.  Many people spoke of the genuine and real love that existed between Nurul and Shakila.  One former colleague remembered Miah showing him the the executive floor in a corporate building owned by their company, where director Brian De Palma, filmed a scene with Sean Penn in the 1993 film Carlito’s Way.

Eight years is not a long period of time.  Yet, reading about the sense of loss that Mr. Miah’s friends and family have experienced, it is obvious that not a day passes where the loss of his life is not felt, and they have carried that loss every single day. 

Reading the words from people who loved him, it is clear to see that he touched so many lives and made so many people happy, just by being himself and living his life.  That is a gift, and the people whose lives Mr. Miah touched have never forgotten his gifts.

Mr. Miah gave Wendy Murray one of these gifts just one day before he died.  Ms. Murray’s account brought tears to my eyes, because I realized from her account, that we all have a Miah we know.  The person that cheers you up- the person who always says hi to you- the person who is always in a good mood- the person who goes out of their way to make your day brighter.  I think her words summarize what Mr. Miah meant to so many people- even to those of us who never met him:

“On September 10, 2001 I arrived to work with a frown on my face, frustrated by the hustle and bustle of the morning. Miah was walking doen the hall and asked me “where is my sunshine today” that is how he referred to my smile. I said “tough morning” and promised him a smile later on in the day. We talked a little bit about his weekend and went about our day. I don’t remember if I did give him a smile that day, but those words stay with me to this day. Miah was always able to make me smile, I just wish I had one that morning. I know your wonderful spirit is in a good place…”

I offer my sincere sympathy to Mr. Miah and Ms. Yasmin’s family and friends, and I am so sorry for your loss.  I believe, like Ms. Murray, that their spirits are in a good place.  

May all the innocent victims of September 11th, rest in peace.  To their families and friends, we will never forget. 

“Love is stronger than death even though it can’t stop death from happening, but no matter how hard death tries it can’t separate people from love. It can’t take away our memories either. In the end, life is stronger than death.” ~ Unknown

Nurul Haq Miah and Shakila Yasmin