hate

it's such a strong word. but as i write this one handed because i am nursing my new baby, i think it...feel it...and strong does not seem like enough.

you know what?? i would punch you if i saw you, on the street i would cross over to let you know what i am thinking now.

i hate what you are putting my mom though.

everyone knows grief. has bad things happen to them. you could choose to grow stronger, learn.

but you choose not too. and to blame everyone around you.

i thought from the first time we met that you where a bitch. thanks for proving me right.

Almost done

38 weeks and 5 days!

Last night I had some fairly strong contractions...for a total of a few hours. ;) I have to say when they started spacing out and I fell at last asleep between them...I thought ahhhhhhhh....I can go to sleep!!! It's ok to have the baby another night! :)

When they started around 9pm I was kinda like oh no! I had been at work all day, up early with my almost 5 year old...I wanted to rest. To sleep. Not labor. Oh well, when it is time, it is time.

And truly, I can not wait to meet this new little person who is moving and rolling around inside me. :)

Come out baby whenever you are ready!!!

grief

so i went to grief therapy with a really really nice woman a couple of days ago. i cried and cried and cried.....

and did some talking as well.

for the first time in a quite a while i have had no acid bubbling up in my throat. no burning heart pain.

learning to live in the moment. not in the past, not in the future. now. and that feels better.

one more day and i am 38 weeks. baby is head down...

i am calm one moment and freaking out the next...mainly inside but there are times where it breaks free and i start to take it out...briefly on those around me (sorry family!!).

baby had been head down, on the right side...sometimes laying more towards my back but HEAD DOWN.

now, NOW baby is laying SIDE WAYS. yes, side ways..

one might wonder how the hell a pretty much full size kiddo is now laying side ways instead of up and down??? i am wondering that myself anyway.

one thought is that i am stuffing emotions in and not expressing some grief that has come into my life, and baby is acting crazy 'cause of this. or, since my sister had her second baby a month ago i spend lots of time (as much as i can!!!) holding her little daughter laying across my stomach...and my baby is now laying in the EXACT same way just INSIDE me, that maybe they like each other and are bonding...heartbeat to heartbeat. weird. cute, but weird.

i think i am going to go to belly dancing class this weekend. mom is going to pressure points on my feet and give me some homeopathics.

i can not remember ever being scared with my first baby. never. i just assumed that i would of course have my baby come out of my body at home when it was ready to come out. and he did. and it all was fine and dandy. now i have fears, really big fears that keep me awake at night, that make my cry at random times, that make me doubt what my body and my baby can do.

i still go to births and feel like of COURSE everything will be great, and that this is what our bodies are made for, and feel calm and centered.

and now it is my turn, and one day can be great and calm and positive. and the next could be me feeling shaky and frightened. is this normal?? mom says maybe i should spend the next few weeks going to therapy, working out some of this with someone else. and i am not against that. but it's like where am i going to fit that in what with a almost five year old son and work and the house and being so DAMN TIRED...and can i just say that i am tired of crying?? cause that is what i would be doing, lets be honest here, just lots and lots of crying and sobbing, i don't even know when i would find the breath to talk...

so writing is supposed to help. so i am writing. and maybe it will. maybe i will not have a nightmare tonight that my baby is born breech or something is wrong or or or or or....

Wine and Pregnancy – Lies That Women Are Told

January 05, 2006
Wine and Pregnancy – Lies That Women Are Told
Editor's note: Please feel free to contribute comments and opinions on this article. Scroll to the bottom of the page to find the comment screen. Only 50 replies are shown per page, starting with the first comment received. Hit the "more comments" link to read our entire public commentary. All comments are read and approved before posting. All opinions are welcome, but comments must contribute to moving the discussion forward and indicate that the reader has in fact read the article and commentaries. Profanity, personal insults and bizarre claims are not allowed. ________________________________________________________ Contributed by Daniel Rogov, wine writer

Since 1990 every bottle of wine, beer and spirits sold in the United States has carried the warning that "according to the Surgeon General, women should not drink alcoholic beverages during pregnancy because of the risk of birth defects." If that has not been enough to add to the anxiety of women already concerned about their own health and the health of their fetuses, hundreds of newspaper articles and television talk shows have been devoted to convincing women that if they have even a single drink during their pregnancy that there is a chance that their baby will be born deformed, addicted to alcohol or retarded.

It seems, however, as if the American government, medical authorities and media have not been telling American women the entire truth. Although the official message is "don't drink at all during pregnancy", a great deal of recent research and a re-examination of the alcohol-pregnancy issue show that there is no conclusive evidence to demonstrate that moderate drinking during pregnancy can harm the fetus.



According to Doctors David Whitten and Martin Lipp of the University of California at San Francisco, "the campaign against drinking during pregnancy started in 1973 when several studies showed that heavy drinking during pregnancy can cause the condition known as the Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. These studies demonstrated that the children of many alcoholic mothers were born with a cluster of severe birth defects. "What the government conveniently chose to ignore" say Whitten and Lipp, is that this syndrome is extremely rare, occurring only 3 times in 100,000 births, and then only when the mother drinks abusively throughout her pregnancy."

Lipp and Whitten, whose "To Your Health" was published in 1995, are among an increasing number of doctors and researchers who feel that pregnant women have no reason to fear drinking a glass of wine every day. As revealed by contributing editor Thomas Matthews in the August 31, 1994 issue of the "Wine Spectator" magazine which was devoted largely to this controversy, "there is even new research that shows that moderate drinking during pregnancy may actually help the development of the child after birth."

No one questions the fact that the consumption of large amounts of alcohol during pregnancy can harm the fetus. It has been well established, for example, that the children of women who drink more than 3 - 4 glasses of wine daily show significant decreases in birth weight and length than those of women who drink 1 - 2 glasses daily, and it is generally accepted that having five or more drinks per day is especially dangerous to the fetus. Here, however, agreement ends, and Genevieve Knupfer of the Alcohol Research Group in Berkeley, California says that part of the problem comes about because many of the studies that reported adverse effects on the fetus used imprecise methodology. In several studies, for example, researchers arbitrarily defined "heavy drinkers" as those women who consumed more than one glass of wine daily.

Feeling even more strongly, Dr. Michael Samuels of New York City's Doctor's Hospital says that the data has been "turned around for the purpose of frightening women", and indicates that birth defects of any kind occur in 3 - 5% of babies born in the United States and only 1 - 2% of those can be related to the ingestion of alcohol. Based on the data of Samuels and other medical researchers, it becomes clear that less than 0.1% of all birth defects are related to alcohol, and that more than 90% of the affected children are born to women with a history of alcohol abuse.

More than this, not even one study carried out since the mid-1980s has shown a direct correlation between moderate alcohol consumption and birth defects. One study, of 33,300 California women showed that even though 47% drank moderately during their pregnancies that none of their babies met the criteria for Fetal Alcoholic Syndrome. The authors of this study concluded "that alcohol at moderate levels is not a significant cause of malformation in our society and that the position that moderate consumption is dangerous, is completely unjustified."

Some studies go as far as to indicate that light to moderate drinking may actually improve the chance of successful pregnancies. A 1993 study published in the "American Journal of Epidemiology" by Ruth Little and Clarence Weinberg concluded, for example, that there were fewer stillbirths and fewer losses of fetus due to early labor among women who consumed a moderate level of alcohol. That some alcohol can be protective against preterm birth is also supported by Dr. Martha Direnfeld of Haifa University who points out that when used properly, alcohol is known to stop unwanted uterine contractions, and thus has "saved many pregnancies that might otherwise have spontaneously aborted." More than this, Dr. Robert Sokol of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse in Detroit has shown that it is light drinkers and not abstainers who have the best chance of having a baby of optimal birth weight and in their book "Alcohol and the Fetus" and Doctors Henry Rosset and Lynn Wiener have presented data that shows that children of moderate drinkers tend to score highest on developmental tests at the age of 18 months.


Despite these and many other findings the United States government, the American Medical Association, the British Medical Association and the vast majority of American and English doctors continue to recommend complete abstention from wine, beer and spirits during pregnancy. An examination of why this is true reveals that the issue is as emotional, ideological and political as it is medical. Well respected wine writer Janis Robinson, has declared that "in this our male dominated society, men feel entitled to lecture pregnant women on how they should best discharge their responsibilities to their unborn children." In a similar tone, Katha Pollit, writing in "The Nation" claimed that "all of these warnings allow the government to appear to be concerned about babies without having to spend any money, change any priorities or challenge any vested interests."

No one argues that there are no risks whatever in alcohol consumption during pregnancy, even at sensible levels, but as Thomas Matthews stated in the Wine Spectator, "it is important to ask: risky when compared to what?" In her recently published book "The Myths of Motherhood", Shary Turner indicates that alcohol is far from the only risk factor pregnant women are warned against. Other items on the list include caffeine, chocolate, raw oysters, unpasteurized cheese, tropical fruits, drugs that alleviate cold symptoms, nail polish, suntan lotion and hair dye, all of which in some amount may harm the fetus. Turner's conclusion is that "the only risk free pregnancy is one that is meant less to benefit the baby than to imprison the mother in anxiety and self-reproach."


In the absence of 100% certainty about the issue, many continue to insist that abstinence is the best advice to give pregnant women. Others, however, see this attitude as illogical and have concluded that the risks and benefits associated with light to moderate regular wine consumption compare quite favorably with most other activities of daily life. Doctors Whitten and Lipp write that "light, regular wine consumption, or one or two glasses of table wine per day can be part of the healthy lifestyle for most people, including pregnant women." Israeli gynecologist-researchers Howard Carp and Martha Direnfeld also feel that women who were drinking healthfully before pregnancy are not putting their fetuses in danger if they go on drinking in the same way during pregnancy. Dr. Carp states that "an occasional glass of wine or any other drink is fine, no problem at all, and those women who drink a glass of wine once or twice a week with their meals should not feel any guilt or fear at all." Like Dr. Carp, Dr. Direnfeld acknowledges the harm of drinking in excess but feels that "a reasonable amount of alcohol, say a glass of wine per day, will not harm the baby."

It is true that all of the evidence has not yet been gathered, but it is difficult not to see the logic of the conclusion that when it comes to drinking, evidence demands interpretations and decisions require judgment. Women are capable of choosing for themselves.

_________________________________________________

Daniel Rogov is the Wine and Food Critic of HaAretz newspaper in Israel. He is also the author of Rogov's Guide to Israeli Wines and a regular contributor to Tom Stevenson's Wine Report and Hugh Johnson's Pocket Wine Book. His wine and gastronomy internet site and forum can be found at http://www.stratsplace.com/rogov/home.html

Don't Sell Your Sisters Down the River

Editorial: Don't Sell Your Sisters Down the River
Jan Tritten
© 2000 Midwifery Today, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

[Editor's note: This editorial originally appeared in Midwifery Today Issue 55, Autumn 2000.]

The Midwives Alliance of North America (MANA) has always been an inclusive organization, a place for all midwives. MANA's whole foundation has been one of acceptance and unity. I was shocked, therefore, when I heard that the board had proposed that only licensed, certified professional midwives (CPMs) or certified nurse-midwives (CNMs) could be voting members. This proposal reeks of a witch hunt and will cause even worse separation in our already divided movement.

Midwifery was bruised and nearly broken in New York state in the mid-1990s when direct entry and lay midwives were outlawed, then replaced, by only those midwives coming out of an "approved" direct entry program. Is MANA planning this scene for the whole country? Will MANA members simply stand by in complicity? If so, another midwifery uprising will occur, bringing forth a new surge of lay midwives who are willing to serve women in a way that we can't. The flow of the river is carrying us in a direction we will soon be unable to resist. Midwifery will be back where it was several years ago, with a strong, illegal lay midwifery movement acting as a powerful undercurrent. The midwives of MANA will represent the status quo. We will have colluded with the patriarchal medical establishment so that it is against the law to practice anything the whim of medicine decides midwives should or shouldn't do. We will be limited soon by protocols that will hamstring us into practicing watered-down midwifery and will rob women of their birthing rights.

Remember, we are all in this together—mothers, families and all midwives who promote and maintain the midwifery model of care. The movement also includes—needs—the associated helpers, physicians, doulas, childbirth educators and activists. As a movement, we must be careful not to be self-promoting in a factional manner. The further we get away from this concept of a unified movement, the more self-promoting we become.

Midwifery knowledge really belongs to the people. Professions seek to exclude others from the closely guarded knowledge of their members. This sort of exclusive professionalization should not become the pathway of midwifery. Our movement must continue to recognize that birth belongs to families.

Otherwise, we are building our own trap. Even CNMs can't practice unless a physician signs for them. Will we, as non-medically trained professionals, get more privilege than CNMs? Don't bet on it. The current is sweeping us along. What we get by with now will change later. Let's open our eyes and wake up. We have to protect the future as well as the present. Today midwives are still allowed multiple routes of entry, but tomorrow we may be required to enter via an “approved” school, probably steeped in the medical model. The medical culture in this country exists cradle-to-grave and is strong. Midwives are the still, small voices advocating for women and their babies. Scream! Don't let your mouth be gagged by the MANA proposal.

Are you worried about safety at birth? Then focus your worry on what is happening to motherbaby during pregnancy and birth in medically based practices. If you call yourself a midwife, then protecting motherbaby from harmful procedures and substances is your first job.

The idea behind the MANA proposal is not culturally sensitive. Midwives are now engaged in birthing a global movement to honor and preserve traditional midwifery. We have some of the best traditional midwives right here in the United States, yet this proposal undermines them. Gladys Milton was a wonderful granny midwife who fought the state of Florida for her ability to practice—and won. We were all incensed when this happened to her, but it appears that we are willing to turn around and take the ability to practice away from our sisters.

Right now, empirical midwives in the United States still have the most autonomy of nearly any midwives anywhere. Yet we are slowly sacrificing that autonomy with our licensing requirements. I realize that the current MANA proposal addresses voting privileges only within the organization. However, voluntary licensing is available only in Oregon and Minnesota. The rest of the states that have adopted licensing require it. Although licensing might be an unfortunate necessity in some states, taking the vote away from our unlicensed sisters is simply not acceptable. Licensing is a double-edged sword that limits women's choices. The more rules we have, the less we can use our intuition and knowledge. The less autonomy we have, the less we can really serve women. Instead of serving the motherbaby, we begin to serve the Western medical patriarchy.

As midwives, aren't we capable of something different and more feminine than thinking in a Western, hierarchical, patriarchal manner—the “we are in, you are out” thought style? I believe we are. Our midwifery model is planted in a holistic model. The midwives' role is planted squarely on the shoulders of our sisters Shiphrah and Puah. In the story of Moses, they disobeyed Pharaoh; so must we.

Take a look at Robbie Davis-Floyd's work on open and closed thought systems in her book Authoritative Knowledge. The closed thought system evident in the MANA proposal tromps on my freedom of religion as well as my inherent right to the pursuit of happiness. As Ina May Gaskin said, birth is “a sacrament.” Birth is a holy event of God sending a baby, a new human being, to this life on Earth. I have the most freedom to enact this sacrament my way if I can choose with whom, if anyone, I will birth. More women already are choosing unassisted homebirth, and as midwives lose their freedom to serve the women who want unmedicalized homebirth, there will be a lot more.

The damage this impending rift will cause in our fragile movement is immeasurable but huge, with a ripple effect that will be felt forever in our herstory. If we sell our sisters downriver, will the river change course? A popular song from the ’70s said “freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.” But that's not true. Freedom is our heritage and goes deep into the American soul (see my editorial in Issue No. 52).

Midwifery Today seeks to have a loving midwife available to all moms. Let's let the families who want midwives to attend them choose whom they want. Let's provide these families a wide variety of choices.

The MANA proposal likely will have the unfortunate side effect of outlawing lay midwifery all over the United States in spite of the organization's once-stated goal to decriminalize midwifery. MANA might consider rejoining the fight to decriminalize rather than going after certain midwives whose practices aren't stamped and approved by the medical patriarchy. Remember, diversity is our strength. Let's find ways to work out our needs without excluding others.

Note: Issue 56 is on building birth communities. I invite you to respond with your ideas for building strong communities with a sense of unity and responsibility that we owe to each other. The concept “Save the Midwife” includes all of us.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't miss out on the great editorials in Midwifery Today. Subscribe today!

Midwives 'losing' breech birth skills

Most breech labours end in Caesareans

Midwives are losing the skill to carry out breech births because so many women are having Caesareans, health experts have warned.
Jean Robinson, a former General Medical Council (GMC) and Patient Association member, said better midwife training would give pregnant women more choices.

She said: "Women are losing the opportunity to have vaginal births and those that are being carried out are being carried out by obstetricians.



Women are supposed to have a choice. At present only those who can afford a private midwife are likely to get a midwifery breech delivery

Jean Robinson

"In the days when a large proportion of our births were home births, midwives were able to deliver babies, twins, small babies and very large babies as well as breech babies."

A "breech baby" is a baby who is not positioned in the birth canal with his or her head down. Instead, the legs or buttocks appear first.

Ms Robinson said fewer and fewer midwives were being offered the chance to carry out such births and so were losing vital skills.

"They would not have the skills or the confidence to deliver them vaginally. More and more breeches now mean a routine Caesarean."

Ms Robinson, a current honorary officer for the Association for Improvements in Maternity Services (AIMS), raised her concerns in an article in the British Journal of Midwifery.

Complications

She said: "Whether working at home or in the hospital, midwives are going to find themselves coping unexpectedly with a breech arrival.

"Transferring the woman before the birth or getting an experienced doctor quickly is not always an option.

"Some of the births in transit might have been better managed by delivery before transfer, but I suspect the midwives could not, or dare not, do it.

"Women are supposed to have a choice. At present only those who can afford a private midwife are likely to get a midwifery breech delivery."


Midwives need to learn how to do breech births


She said women should be offered vaginal births wherever possible to avoid complications during surgery or in future pregnancies.

Independent midwife Mary Cronk agreed.

She said breech deliveries were not recommended but women should, where possible, be offered the chance to have vaginal breech births.

"I think many of us have lost the skills. And many who trained in the 80's and 90's never learnt the skill," she said.

Midwives who could carry out breech births were being inundated with calls from mothers anxious to avoid surgery, she added.

"In the last 48 hours I have had three calls from women with breech births and all the women told me that they had been told they would need a Caesarean."

'Unnecessary surgery'

She said midwives needed to be given better training and education to cope with breech births.

A spokeswoman for the Royal College of Midwives said they were aware of the need for health professionals to update their skills to avoid unnecessary surgery.

"Obstetricians and midwives need to update their skills to successfully manage vaginal breech birth once more," she said.

"The RCM has run practice based seminars for midwives on the management of breech vaginal births as part of our ongoing continuing professional development programme for midwives."

But she said that a Canadian study comparing the outcome of planned Caesarean section with planned vaginal birth for breech presentation at term suggested that planned Caesarean section was better for the baby than planned vaginal birth."

I am interested in breech births

Breech birth
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A breech birth is the birth of a baby from a breech presentation. In the breech presentation the baby enters the birth canal with the buttocks or feet first as opposed to the normal head first presentation.

Contents [hide]
1 Etiology
2 Epidemiology
3 Categories
4 Process of breech birth
5 Risks
6 Factors influencing the safety
7 Turning the baby to avoid breech birth
8 Breech birth versus Caesarean section
9 See also
10 References
11 External links


Etiology
Certain factors can encourage a breech presentation. Prematurity is likely the chief cause. Twenty five percent of fetuses are in the breech position at 32 weeks gestation; this drops to three percent at term. The increasing size of the fetus near term traps the fetus into the head down position normally. Pregnancies ending in preterm birth simply recruit more breeches before they can turn to head down. Factors predisposing to term breech presentation include:

multiple (or multifetal) pregnancy (twins, triplets or more)
abnormal volume of amniotic fluid: both polyhydramnios and oligohydramnios
fetal anomalies: hydrocephaly, anencephaly and other congenital abnormalities
uterine abnormalities
prior Cesarean section[1]
It is postulated that the baby normally assumes a head down presentation because of the weight of the baby's head. As the mass of the fetal head is the same as that of the pelvis, it is more likely that the enlarging fetus is more and more restricted in its movements, and simply becomes entrapped. The shape of the uterus is a more likely determinant of the final fetal presentation as uterine shape anomalies are strong predictors of breech presentation and other malpresentations.

Epidemiology
Researchers generally cite a breech presentation frequency at term of 3-4%[2][3] at the onset of labour though some claim a frequency as high as 7%[4]. When labour is premature, the incidence of breech presentation is higher. At 28 weeks' gestation 25% of babies are breech, and the percentage decreases approaching term (40 weeks' gestation).


Categories
There are four main categories of breech births:

Frank breech - the baby's bottom comes first, and his or her legs are flexed at the hip and extended at the knees (with feet near the ears). 65-70% of breech babies are in the frank breech position.
Complete breech - the baby's hips and knees are flexed so that the baby is sitting crosslegged, with feet beside the bottom.
Footling breech - one or both feet come first, with the bottom at a higher position. This is rare at term but relatively common with premature fetuses.
Kneeling breech - the baby is in a kneeling position, with one or both legs extended at the hips and flexed at the knees. This is extremely rare.

Process of breech birth
As in labour with a baby in a normal head-down position, uterine contractions typically occur at regular intervals and gradually cause the cervix to become thinner and to open. In the more common breech presentations, the baby’s bottom (rather than feet or knees) is what is first to descend through the maternal pelvis and emerge from the vagina.

At the beginning of labour, the baby is generally in an oblique position, facing either the right or left side of the mother's back. As the baby's bottom is the same size in the term baby as the baby's head. Descent is thus as for the presenting fetal head and delay in descent is a cardinal sign of possible problems with the delivery of the head.

In order to begin the birth, internal rotation needs to occur. This happens when the mother's pelvic floor muscles cause the baby to turn so that it can be born with one hip directly in front of the other. At this point the baby is facing one of the mother's inner thighs. Then, the shoulders follow the same path as the hips did. At this time the baby usually turns to face the mother's back. Next occurs external rotation, which is when the shoulders emerge as the baby’s head enters the maternal pelvis. The combination of maternal muscle tone and uterine contractions cause the baby’s head to flex, chin to chest. Then the back of the baby's head emerges and finally the face .

Due to the increased pressure during labour and birth, it is normal for the baby's leading hip to be bruised and genitalia to be swollen; this usually resolves shortly after birth.

Babies who assumed the frank breech position in utero may continue to hold their legs in this position for some days after birth - this is normal.


Risks
This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2007)

Umbilical cord prolapse may occur, particularly in the complete, footling, or kneeling breech. This is caused by the lowermost parts of the baby not completely filling the space of the dilated cervix. When the waters break the amniotic sac, it is possible for the umbilical cord to drop down and become compressed. This complication severely diminishes oxygen flow to the baby and the baby must be delivered immediately (usually by Caesarean section) so that he or she can breathe. If there is a delay in delivery, the brain can be damaged. Among full-term, head down babies, cord prolapse is quite rare, occurring in 0.4 percent. Among frank breech babies the incidence is 0.5 percent, among complete breeches 4-6 percent, and among footling breeches 15-18 percent.

Head entrapment is caused the failure of the fetal head to negotiate the maternal midpelvis. At full term, the fetal bitrochanteric diameter (the distance between the outer points of the hips) is about the same as the biparietal diameter (the transverse diameter of the skull) - simply put the size of the hips are the same as the size of the head. The relatively larger buttocks dilate the cervix as effectively as the head does in the typical head-down presentation. In contrast, the relative head size of a preterm baby is greater than the fetal buttocks. If the baby is preterm, it may be possible for the baby’s body to emerge while the cervix has not dilated enough for the head to emerge.

Because the umbilical cord—the baby’s oxygen supply—is significantly compressed while the head is in the pelvis during a breech birth, it is important that the delivery of the aftercoming fetal head not be delayed. The head only just fits through the pelvis, and if the arm is extended alongside the head, delivery will not occur. If this occurs, the Lovset manoeuvre may be employed, or the arm may be manually brought to a position in front of the chest. The Lovset Manoeuvre works by rotating the fetal body by holding the fetal pelvis. Twisting the body such that an arm trails behind the shoulder, it will tend to cross down over the face to a position where it can be reached by the obstetrician's finger, and brought to a position below the head. A similar rotation in the opposite direction is made to deliver the other arm. In order to present the smallest diameter (9.5 cm) to the pelvis, the baby’s head must be flexed (chin to chest). If the head is in a deflexed position, the risk of entrapment is increased. Uterine contractions and maternal muscle tone encourage the head to flex. If the birth attendant pulls on the baby’s body, this action may deflex the head.

Oxygen deprivation may occur from either cord prolapse or prolonged compression of the cord during birth, as in head entrapment. If oxygen deprivation is prolonged, it may cause permanent neurological damage or death.

Injury to the brain and skull may occur due to the rapid passage of the baby's head through the mother's pelvis. This causes rapid decompression of the baby's head. In contrast, a baby going through labor in the head-down position usually experiences gradual molding (temporary reshaping of the skull) over the course of a few hours. This sudden compression and decompression in breech birth may cause no problems at all, but it can injure the brain. This injury is more likely in preterm babies. The fetal head may be controlled by a special two handed grip call the Morisseau-Smellie-Veit manoeuvre or the elective application of forceps. This will be of value in controlling the rate of delivery of the head and reduce decompression. Related to potential head trauma, researchers have identified a relationship between breech birth and autism[5].

Squeezing the baby’s abdomen can damage internal organs. Positioning the baby incorrectly while using forceps to deliver the aftercoming head can damage the spine or spinal cord. It is important for the birth attendant to be knowledgeable, skilled, and experienced with all variations of breech birth. In the United States, because Cesarean section is increasingly being used for breech babies, fewer and fewer birth attendants are developing these skills.

Injury may occur even if a birth attendant uses appropriate interventions during labour. A majority of full-term term frank breech babies would be born without problems even without assistance. However, in a minority of cases, expert assistance is needed for the baby to be born safely. This must be placed in perspective. It is this minority that determines the safety of the choice of vaginal delivery of the breech. A fetal death rate as low as 1% might be acceptable to some societies if a greater benefit could accrue. Take a country like the United States with a population of 300 million, and a 14.14/1000 birth rate, assume a 3% breech rate, and the aforementioned 1% mortality. This would result in an annual attributable death rate from breech delivery of 1,273 babies per year. Attributable death rate implies that the deaths occurred because of the selection of vaginal delivery and not from concurrent problems, such as congenital abnormalities or prematurity.


[edit] Factors influencing the safety
This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2009)

Type of breech presentation - the frank breech has the most favorable outcomes in vaginal birth, with many studies suggesting no difference in outcome compared to head down babies. (Some studies, however, find that planned caesarean sections for all breech babies improve outcome. The difference may rest in part on the skill of the doctors who delivered babies in different studies.) Complete breech presentation is the next most favorable position, but these babies sometimes shift and become footling breeches during labour. Footling and kneeling breeches have a higher risk of cord prolapse and head entrapment.
Parity - Parity refers to the number of times a woman has given birth before. If a woman has given birth vaginally, her pelvis has "proven" it is big enough to allow a baby of that baby's size to pass through it. However, a head-down baby's head often molds (shifts its shape to fit the maternal pelvis) and so may present a smaller diameter than the same size baby born breech. Research on the issue has been contradictory as far as whether vaginal breech birth is safer when the mother has given birth before, or not.
Fetal size in relation to maternal pelvic size - If the mother's pelvis is roomy and the baby is not large, this is favorable for vaginal breech delivery. However, prenatal estimates of the size of the baby and the size of the pelvis are unreliable.
Hyperextension of the fetal head - this can be evaluated with ultrasound. Less than 5% of breech babies have their heads in the "star gazing" position, face looking straight upwards and the back of the head resting against the back of the neck. Caesarean delivery is absolutely necessary, because vaginal birth with the baby's head in this position confers a high risk of spinal cord trauma and death.
Maturity of the Baby - Premature babies appear to be at higher risk of complications if delivered vaginally than if delivered by caesarean section.
Progress of Labour - A spontaneous, normally progressing, straightforward labour requiring no intervention is a favourable sign.
Second twins - If a first twin is born head down and the second twin is breech, the chances are good that the second twin can have a safe breech birth.
Birth attendant's skill (and experience with breech birth) - The skill of the doctor or midwife and the number of breech births previously assisted is of crucial importance. Many of the dangers in vaginal birth for breech babies come from mistakes made by birth attendants.

Turning the baby to avoid breech birth
There are many methods which have been attempted with the aim of turning breech babies, with varying degrees of success:

External cephalic version where a midwife or doctor turns the baby by manipulating the baby through the mother's abdomen. ECV has a success rate between 40 - 70% depending on practitioner (Goer, 1995, 111) The fetal heart is monitored after the turn attempt, usually in the context of an institutional protocol. Studies show that turning the baby at term (after 36 weeks) is effective in reducing the number of babies born in the breech position.[6] Complications from external cephalic version are rare. Studies have also shown that attempting to turn the baby prior to this point has no impact on the presentation at term.[7]
Using hypothetical scenarios, a small study in the Netherlands found that few obstetric practitioners would attempt ECV in the presence of oligohydramnios.[8] A case report of treating oligohydramnios with amnioinfusion, followed by ECV, was successful in turning the fetus.[9]

Various manoeuvres are suggested to assist spontaneous version of a breech presenting pregnancy. These include maternal positioning or other exercises. A study has shown that there is insufficient evidence as to the benefit of maternal positioning in reducing the incidence of breech presentation.[7]

Breech birth versus Caesarean section
Caesarean section is the most common way to deliver a breech baby in the USA, Australia, and Great Britain. Like any major surgery, it involves risks. Maternal mortality is increased by a Caesarean section, but still remains a rare complication in the First World. Third World statistics are dramatically different, and mortality is increased significantly. There is remote risk of injury to the mother's internal organs, injury to the baby, and severe hemorrhage requiring hysterectomy with resultant infertility. More commonly seen are problems with noncatastrophic bleeding, postoperative infection and wound healing problems.

One large study has confirmed that elective cesarean section has lower risk to the fetus and a slightly increased risk to the mother, than planned vaginal delivery of the breech[10] however elements of the methodology used have undergone some criticism.[11][12]

The same birth injuries that can occur in vaginal breech birth may rarely occur in Caesarean breech delivery. A Caesarean breech delivery is still a breech delivery. However the soft tissues of the uterus and abdominal wall are more forgiving of breech delivery than the hard bony ring of the pelvis. If a Caesarean is scheduled in advance (rather than waiting for the onset of labor) there is a risk of accidentally delivering the baby too early, so that the baby might have complications of prematurity. The mother's subsequent pregnancies will be riskier than they would be after a vaginal birth (uterine rupture). The presence of a uterine scar will be a risk factor for any subsequent pregnancies.


See also
Asynclitic birth, another abnormal birth position
Childbirth
Pregnancy
Uterine Rupture

References
^ Vendittelli F, Rivière O, Crenn-Hébert C, Rozan MA, Maria B, Jacquetin B (May 2008). "Is a breech presentation at term more frequent in women with a history of cesarean delivery?". Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 198 (5): 521.e1–6. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2007.11.009. PMID 18241817.
^ link not accessible: http://www.rwh.org.au/rwhcpg/maternity.cfm?doc_id=7857
^ Breech at term, Early and late consequences of mode of delivery, Lone Krebs, Danish Medical Bulletin - No. 4. November 2005. Vol. 52 Pages 234-52
^ Pregnancy, Breech Delivery, emedicine.com
^ Deborah Bilder, MD, Judith Pinborough-Zimmerman, PhD, Judith Miller, PhD and William McMahon, MD. "Prenatal, Perinatal, and Neonatal Factors Associated With Autism Spectrum Disorders." Pediatrics, 123(5), May 2009, pp. 1293-1300
^ External cephalic version for breech presentation at term Hofmeyr GJ, Kulier R, cochrane.org
^ a b Cephalic version by postural management for breech presentation Hofmeyr GJ, Kulier R, cochrane.org
^ Kok M, Van Der Steeg JW, Mol BW, Opmeer B, Van Der Post JA (2008). "Which factors play a role in clinical decision-making in external cephalic version?". Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 87 (1): 31–5. doi:10.1080/00016340701728075. PMID 17957499.
^ Buek JD, McVearry I, Lim E, Landy H, Afriyie-Gray A (June 2005). "Successful external cephalic version after amnioinfusion in a patient with preterm premature rupture of membranes". Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 192 (6): 2063–4. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2004.07.057. PMID 15970899.
^ Planned Caesarean section for term breech delivery, Hofmeyr GJ, Hannah ME, cochrane.org
^ When Research is Flawed: Planned Vaginal Birth versus Elective Cesarean for Breech Presentation [1]
^ Inappropriateness of randomised trials for complex phenomena [2]
Banks, Maggie. Breech Birth Woman Wise. Birthspirit Books, 1998.
Fraser, Diane and Cooper, Margaret (Eds). Myles Textbook for Midwives, 14th edition. Churchill Livingstone, 2003.
Frye, Anne. Holistic Midwifery: A Comprehensive Textbook for Midwives in Homebirth Practice, Vol I, Care During Pregnancy. Labrys Press, 1995.
Gabbe, Steven; Niebyl, Jennifer; and Simpson, Joe Leigh (Eds). Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies, 4th edition. Churchill Livingstone, 2002.
Goer, Henci, Obstetric Myths versus Research Realities, Bergin and Garvey, London, 1995,
Oxorn, Harry. Human Labor and Birth, 5th edition. Appleton & Lange, 1986.
Vernon, David ed. Having a Great Birth in Australia Australian College of Midwives, Canberra, 2005 ISBN 0-9751674-3-X
Waites, Benna. Breech Birth. Free Association Books, 2003.

Neonatal Death

When a baby dies in the first 28 days of life, it is called neonatal death. In the United States in 2002, about 19,000 babies died in their first month (1).

As parents attempt to cope with a loss, they may have many questions about what happened to their baby. The following may help parents discuss the loss of their baby with their health care providers.

What are the most common causes of neonatal death?
Premature birth (before 37 completed weeks of pregnancy) is the most common cause of neonatal death. Prematurity and its complications cause almost 30 percent of neonatal deaths (2). The earlier a baby is born, the more likely he is to die. About 20 to 35 percent of babies born at 23 weeks of pregnancy survive, while about 50 to 70 percent of babies born at 24 to 25 weeks, and more than 90 percent born at 26 to 27 weeks, survive (1, 3).

About 12 percent of babies are born prematurely (4). The causes of premature delivery are not thoroughly understood. In some cases, a pregnant woman may have health problems (such as high blood pressure) or pregnancy complications (such as placental problems) that increase her risk of delivering prematurely. Women who have had a previous preterm delivery, are pregnant with twins (or other multiples), or have certain abnormalities of the uterus or cervix also are at increased risk. More often, preterm labor develops unexpectedly in a pregnancy that had been problem-free.

Premature babies, especially those born at less than 32 weeks of pregnancy and weighing less than 3 1/3 pounds, often develop respiratory distress syndrome (RDS). About 23,000 babies develop RDS each year (4).

Babies with RDS have immature lungs that lack a protein called surfactant that keeps small air sacs in the lungs from collapsing. Treatment with surfactant has greatly reduced the number of babies who die from RDS. However, about 880 babies a year die in the neonatal period due to RDS (2).

About 25 percent of babies born preterm, usually before 32 weeks of pregnancy, develop bleeding in the brain called intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH)(5). While mild brain bleeds usually resolve themselves with no or few lasting problems, severe bleeds often result in brain damage or even death.

Some premature babies may develop an intestinal problem called necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC). Treatment with antibiotics and surgery can save many affected babies. However, some develop severe bowel damage and die.

Premature babies have immature immune systems and sometimes develop serious infections such as pneumonia (lung infection), sepsis (blood infection), and meningitis (infection of membranes surrounding the brain and spinal cord). In spite of treatment with antibiotics and antiviral drugs, some babies die.

While deaths due to prematurity are still too common, the outlook for these babies is improving. Surfactant and other treatments are saving more of these babies after birth. And treatment before birth can sometimes prevent or lessen the complications of prematurity. Women who are likely to deliver between 24 and 34 weeks of pregnancy should be treated at least several days before delivery with drugs called corticosteroids, which speed maturation of fetal lungs (6). Studies show this treatment reduces RDS, brain bleeds and infant deaths (6).

Birth defects cause about 21 percent of neonatal deaths (2). Babies with birth defects may be premature or full-term. Sometimes parents learn about their baby's birth defects before birth from prenatal tests, such as ultrasound, amniocentesis and chorionic villus sampling (CVS).

Ultrasound uses sound waves to take a picture of the fetus. It can help diagnose structural birth defects, such as spina bifida (open spine), anencephaly (brain and skull defect), and heart or kidney defects. In amniocentesis, the doctor inserts a thin needle through the abdomen to obtain a small sample of amniotic fluid for testing. In CVS, the doctor takes a tiny sample of tissue from the developing placenta, either using a thin tube that is inserted through the vagina or a needle that is inserted through the abdomen. Amniocentesis and CVS are used to diagnose chromosomal abnormalities, such as Down syndrome, and many genetic birth defects.

Other causes of neonatal death include problems related to:

Complications of pregnancy
Complications involving the placenta, umbilical cord and membranes (bag of waters)
Infections
Asphyxia (lack of oxygen before or during birth) (2)
Which birth defects most commonly cause neonatal deaths?
Heart defects are the most common birth defect-related cause of infant death in the first year of life (7). Heart defects cause nearly one-third of infant deaths (2).

About 1 in every 125 babies is born with a heart defect (8). Because of improvements in the surgical treatment and medical management of these defects, most affected babies survive and do well. However, some babies with severe heart defects may not survive until surgery, or may not survive the surgery. Many babies who die of heart defects in the first month of life have a specific heart defect called hypoplastic left heart syndrome. In this heart defect, the main pumping chamber of the heart is too small to supply blood to the body. New surgical procedures are saving more babies with this heart defect, but many still die. In most cases, doctors do not know why a baby is born with a heart defect, although both genetic and environmental factors are believed to play a role.

Birth defects of the lungs are another common cause of neonatal death. Sometimes, one or both lungs does not develop at all or is malformed for reasons that are not known. In most cases, lung defects occur because other birth defects or pregnancy complications interfered with lung development. Many babies die due to complications that occur in immature lungs as a result of premature birth.

Chromosomal abnormalities are also a common cause of neonatal death. Humans normally have 46 chromosomes. Chromosomes are tiny thread-like structures in our cells that carry our genes; genes are the basic units of heredity that dictate all traits from eye color to workings of internal organs. However, sometimes a baby is born with too many or too few chromosomes. In most cases, an embryo with a chromosomal abnormality will not survive, and the pregnancy will end in miscarriage. In other cases, the baby survives until birth but dies in the early weeks of life.

For example, babies with an extra copy of chromosome 18 or chromosome 13 (called trisomy 18 or trisomy 13) have multiple birth defects and generally die in the first weeks or months of life. Babies with less severe chromosomal abnormalities, such as Down syndrome (trisomy 21), often survive, although affected children have mental retardation and other serious problems.

Birth defects involving the brain and central nervous system are another cause of neonatal death. One example is anencephaly, in which most of the brain and skull are missing. Affected babies may be stillborn (fetus died before birth) or die in the first days of life. This birth defect often can be detected before birth with a blood test, ultrasound or amniocentesis. Anencephaly may be prevented in subsequent pregnancies when the woman takes the B vitamin folic acid before and in the early months of pregnancy. A woman who has had a baby with anencephaly, or a related birth defect called spina bifida, should consult her health care provider before getting pregnant again to find out how much folic acid to take. Generally, a higher-than-normal dose is recommended (usually 4 milligrams) (9).

What support is available for parents who experience a loss?
Parents of critically ill babies in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) need support from family, friends and health care professionals. They should never hesitate to ask their baby's doctors and nurses about their baby's comfort and care. Parents may want to ask how they can share in their baby's care so they can feel that they are helping their baby and creating memories of their baby. Some hospitals have support groups where parents of very sick newborns can share their feelings. Many also have support groups for parents of sick newborns and for parents of babies who have died. Parents who are having trouble coping with their grief, before or after the baby's death, should ask their health care provider for a referral to a counselor who is experienced in dealing with infant death.

Some NICUs have a March of Dimes NICU Family Support® project, which provides information, comfort and services to families with a baby in the NICU. For information and resources from NICU Family Support, click here.

Parents also can visit Share Your Story an online community for families who have or have had a baby in the NICU, including families who have experienced a loss.

What happens after the baby dies?
Grieving parents may be asked if they would like to see or hold their baby after death. Some parents may find this comforting, but others may feel this is too upsetting. Parents should do what feels right to them. Providers may ask if the parents want certain mementos of their baby, such as a lock of hair, footprints or a receiving blanket. Even if looking at these things now is painful, parents may eventually treasure these remembrances. The hospital staff also may provide information on options for burial or memorial services.

The baby's doctors will visit the parents in the hospital and tell them what is known about the cause of the baby's death. They may suggest an autopsy (internal examination after death) to find out more. An autopsy reveals new information about why the baby died in more than one-third of all cases (10). This information can be helpful for parents when they are planning another pregnancy and could possibly improve care in a future pregnancy.

Some parents are not comfortable with an autopsy and can choose not to have one. In these cases, other tests can help determine why the baby died. These tests include X-rays, an examination of the placenta and umbilical cord, and genetic tests. Some of these tests also are done along with an autopsy.

The doctors who cared for the newborn usually meet with the parents about 4 to 6 weeks after the baby's death to discuss the test results. At this time, they can answer the parents' questions in detail. Doctors also can refer the family to counselors or support groups.

Parents whose baby had a birth defect should consider consulting a genetic counselor. These health professionals help families understand what is known about the causes of a birth defect, and the chances that future babies could have the same birth defect. Genetic counselors can provide referrals to medical experts, as well as to appropriate support groups in the community.

For additional support and information on neonatal death, parents can contact:

March of Dimes: Pregnancy and Newborn Loss
March of Dimes: Share Your Story
Learn more about the March of Dimes Campaign to Reduce Preterm Birth.

References

Matthews, T.J., et al. Infant Mortality Statistics from the 2002 Period Linked Birth/Infant Death Data Set. National Vital Statistics Reports, volume 53, number 10, November 24, 2005.
National Center for Health Statistics. 2002 Period Linked Birth/Infant Death Data.
Alexander, G.R., et al. U.S. Birth Weight/Gestational Age-Specific Neonatal Mortality: 1995-1997 Rates for Whites, Hispanics, and Blacks. Pediatrics, volume 111, number 1, January 2003, pages e61-66.
Martin, J.A., et al. Births: Final Data for 2003. National Vital Statistics Reports, volume 54, number 2, September 8, 2005.
Horbar, J.D., et al. Trends in Mortality and Morbidity for Very Low Birth Weight Infants, 1991-1999. Pediatrics, volume 110, number 1, July 2002, pages 143-151.
American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Guidelines for Perinatal Care, Fifth Edition, Elk Grove Village, IL and Washington, DC, 2002.
Hoyert, D.L., et al. Deaths: Preliminary Data for 2003. National Vital Statistics Reports, volume 53, number 15, February 28, 2005.
American Heart Association. Congenital Heart Defects in Children, accessed 12/20/05.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Folic Acid: Public Health Service, updated 7/26/05.
Laing, I.A. Clinical Aspects of Neonatal Death and Autopsy. Seminars in Neonatology, volume 9, 2004, pages 247-254.
March 2006

Meth

I found this to be interesting. I had never thought about where meth came from to start with.

One of the earliest uses of methamphetamine was during World War II when the German military dispensed it under the trade name Pervitin.[6] It was widely distributed across rank and division, from elite forces to tank crews and aircraft personnel. Chocolates dosed with methamphetamine were known as Fliegerschokolade ("airmen's chocolate") when given to pilots, or Panzerschokolade ("tank chocolate") when given to tank crews. From 1942 until his death in 1945, Adolf Hitler may have been given intravenous injections of methamphetamine by his personal physician Theodor Morell as a treatment for depression and fatigue. It is possible that it was used to treat Hitler's speculated Parkinson's disease, or that his Parkinson-like symptoms which developed from 1940 onwards resulted from using methamphetamine.[7]


After World War II, a large supply of amphetamine stockpiled by the Japanese military became available in Japan under the street name shabu (also Philopon, pronounced Hiropon, a tradename)[8]. The Japanese Ministry of Health banned it in 1951; since then it has been increasingly produced by the yakuza criminal organization.[9] Today methamphetamine is still associated with the Japanese underworld, and its use is discouraged by strong social taboos.[citation needed]

In the 1950s there was a rise in the legal prescription of methamphetamine to the American public. According to the 1951 edition of Pharmacology and Therapeutics by Arthur Grollman, it was to be prescribed for "narcolepsy, post-encephalitic Parkinsonism, alcoholism, ... in certain depressive states... and in the treatment of obesity."[citation needed]

The 1960s saw the start of significant use of clandestinely manufactured methamphetamine as well as methamphetamine created in users' own homes for personal use. The recreational use of methamphetamine continued into the 1980s. San Diego, California was described as the "methamphetamine capital of North America" in the December 2, 1989 edition of The Economist[citation needed] and again in 2000, also with South Gate, California as the second capital city

side note from myself to myself

on the phone with my little sister somewhere in Utah...and she laughs and says "wow, maybe you will find someone to bring back who does not mind that you have 2 kids and who will take care of you".

there are so many things that i find offensive with that statement, joking or not. i actually brought it up with her today in from of our mom. sis told me "to get over it already".

k, as soon as you really get it through your head that i don't want someone to "take care" of me. oh, and i don't want someone who "won't mind" that i have kids. my kids before me and that's the way it is.

for fucks sake.

Longest Road Trip Yet!!!

So I hauled my almost 6 month prego self plus 4 1/2 year son on one heck of a trip! :)

We left out home in Long Beach Washington and drove through Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, got to Colorado to visit family and then went through northern Wyoming and then Montana, back into Idaho and finally Washington where we stayed at my brother's house in Spokane for a few days. It was a BLAST. I had no idea how beautiful each state was and in so many different ways!

All the different places we stopped or staid at had nice people but what sticks out the most in that area is Montana! WOW. The most friendly people that I have ever run across.

We will most definitely be making road trips with our little family more of a yearly event.

:)

No panic - The truth about bird flu, H5N1, vaccinations and AIDS

This is an interesting bit of reading that was part of required reading for some classes I had taken. Wanted to share the wealth! :)




No panic - The truth about bird flu, H5N1, vaccinations and AIDS

this is written by Stefan Lanka, virologist, who is coming out and telling the truth about 'viruses' & all the lies - I don't know if we will ever know the truth about viruses as there is so much that isn't accurate............


......................
This is a translation from German (so reads a little rough as translater's first language is Norwegian) of writings on Bird Flu by Stefan Lanka (also writing on the lies of HIV=AIDS - on my wepbage http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/AIDS.htm )

Rolf translated this into into English (an interview with Stefan Lanka on 27.10.2005 on (above all) the "bird flu" issue.
Excellent
Sheri

Interview with Stefan Lanka 27.10.2005 on "bird flu" and some related subjects

Translation by RM of an article in German in the online newspaper FAKTuell, at http://www.faktuell.de/Hintergrund/Background367.shtml. (See also a note below, after the translation.)

22.02.2006



No panic - The truth about bird flu, H5N1, vaccinations and AIDS
Christopher Ray * Comment and interview 27.10.2005



Nobody who observes the doctoring-around concerning symptoms, as it is being practiced just now in the course of the ongoing coalition negotiations, can take the declarations of the politicians and their menials seriously any more. Or do you believe perhaps that with continued Hartz IV and ALG II cutdowns, even a single new workplace will be created?

Or that the big employment wave will necessarily arrive, if we cut down corporation taxation, and raise the sick relief fund charges and the value-added-tax, as well as cutting-down or abolishing the work commuter contributions and night shift wage additions?

All this, in spite of the daily workplace cutdowns and factory closures...

If you are swallowing all this without gainsay, then you should blithely do this also with the next piece of vaccination candy, and delete this page from you Internet favourites, in favour of those with some capitals in their headings and subtitles.

If you realize the fact however that you are permanently being held for a fool or regularly f-cked (sorry!), then you should take the time to listen to an independent scientist who has not let himself be bought:

The virologist Dr. rer. nat. Stefan Lanka.

He has given some answers to the FAKTuell editors - with no "back-door" evasions. Here is the interview:


Bird flu and H5N1, vaccinations and AIDS.



Dr Lanka, are we in Germany threatened by the bird flu?

Only indirectly.

Next year there will be much fewer babies in Germany.

According to the media, the storks will all be snatched away by the bird flu. To this we should now accomodate our minds.

Do you mean that seriously?

Just as seriously as there being any danger for us from the purported bird flu virus H5N1. The danger or the disaster lies somewhere else entirely.

Where, in your opinion, does the danger or the disaster lie?

We have allowed ourselves to lose the habit of using our reason.

That is the actual danger or the disaster. The politicians and the media are taking it upon themselves to delude us into believing everything, for instance, delude us into believing that migratory birds in Asia have been infected with an extremely dangerous, deadly virus.

These mortally diseased birds then keep flying for weeks on end. They fly thousands of kilometres, and then in Rumania, in Turkey, Greece and elsewhere infect hens, geese or other poultry, with which they have had no contact, and which within a very short time get diseased and die.

But the migratory birds do not get diseased and do not die, but keep on flying, for weeks on end, thousands of kilometres. Anyone who believes this will believe too that babies are brought by the stork. In fact the larger part of people in Germany do believe in a danger from bird flu, don't they.

Is there, then, no bird flu at all?

Since the late 19th centrury, diseases of poultry in mass animal farming have been observed: Bluecolouring of the crest, decrease in egglaying performance, sagging of the feathers, and sometimes these animals die too. These diseases were called bird pest.

In present-day mass poultry farming, in particular when hens are being raised in cages, many animals die each day as a result of species-alien animal farming. Later, these consequences of the mass animal farming were no longer called bird pest, but bird flu. Since decades back, we are experiencing that a transferable virus is being maintained as the cause of this, in order to deflect from the actual causes.

Then those 100 million hens which appear to have died from bird flu in reality have died from stress or and/or from nourishment deficiency and poisoning?

No! If one hen lies fewer eggs or gets a blue crest and that hen is tested H5N1-positive too, then all the other hens are gassed. That is how there got to be those 100 million apparently H5N1-killed hens.

If you look at this more closely, then you see behind it a several-decades-long strategy: In the West, the big enterprises are cleaning themselves up with this, because those animals which have died "from the contagious disease" are being compensated for at the expense of the general public, at the highest market price, while in Asia and everywhere where poultry are being farmed successfully, the poultry market there is being destroyed maliciously and on purpose under the leadership of the UN organization FAO.

All big Western polutry farming enterprises, therefore, are keeping their mouths shut and by means of their veterinaries are seeing to it that, if the market price for poultry sinks, they get an infectious disease diagnosed, so that they can get their animals sold at a higher price than would be possible with normal farming, "taken care of" at the governmentally guaranteed maximum price, and all the animals in one single batch too.

To bring it to the common denominator: It's modern subvention scamming combined with paralysing scaremongering, which as a secondary effect guarantees that nobody asks for proof.

Of what did those 61 persons die who were demonstrated to have H5N1?

There is only very little in the way of publicly available reports, describing what were the symptoms and how these persons were then treated. These cases clearly point in one direction: Persons with symptoms of a cold, who then had the bad luck to fall into the hands of H5N1 hunters, were killed with enormous amounts of chemotherapy supposed to restrain the phantom virus. Isolated in plastic tents, surrounded by madmen in space suits, they died, in panicky fear, from multiple organ failures.

Does this bird flu virus then not exist at all?

In humans, in the blood or in other bodily fluids, in an animal or in a plant there never have been seen or demonstrated structures which you could characterize as bird flu viruses or flu viruses or any other supposedly disease-causing virus. The causes of those diseases which are being maintained to be caused by a virus, also those in animals, which can arise quickly and in individuals either one after the other or several at the same time, are known since a long time back.

Even more: For viruses as the causing agents of diseases there in biology, however much you strech things, is simply no place.

Only if I ignore the findings of Dr Hamer's New Medicine, according to which shock events are the cause of many diseases, the findings of chemistry about the effects of poisonings and deficiencies and if I ignore the findings of physics about the effects of radiation, then there is a place for imaginings such as disease-causing viruses.

Why then are disease-causing viruses still being maintained to exist?

The school medicine protagonists/practitioners need the paralysing, stupid-making and destructive fear of diseasecausing phantom viruses as a central basis for their existence:

Firstly, in order to harm many people with vaccinations, in order to build up for themselves a clientele of chronically ill and ailing objects who will put up with anything being done to them.

Secondly, in order not to have to admit that they are failing totally in their treatment of chronical illnesses and have killed and are killing more people than all wars so far have made possible. Every school medicine practitioner is conscious of this, but only very few dare to speak about it. Therefore it's no wonder either that among professional groups, it is that of the school medicine practitioners that has the highest suicide rate, far surpassing other professional groups.

Thirdly, the school medicine practitioners need the paralysing and stupid-making fear of diabolical viruses, in order to conceal their historical origin as an oppression and killing instrument of the Vatican's when it was struggling to rise in the world, having developed out of the usurping West Roman army.

School medicine has been and is the most important pillar of support of all dictatorships and governments which do not want to submit to written law, to constitutions, to human rights, that is, to the democratically legitimized social contract. This explains too why school medicine really can and is allowed to do anything that pleases it, and in this is subjected to no control whatsoever. If we do not overcome this, we will all perish by this school medicine.

Are you not exaggerating a little here?

Unfortunately, no! Anyone who opens his eyes will see this in that way.

Ivan Illich warned about this already in 1975 in his analysis "Die Enteignung der Gesundheit" ("The Expropriation of Health"). Still today this book exists, under the title: Die Nemesis der Medizin (The Nemesis of Medicine).

Goethe described the state of scool medicine very much to the point in Faust I and has the physician Dr Faustus admit:
"Hier war die Arznei, die Patienten starben und niemand fragte, wer genas, so haben wir mit höllischen Latwergen, in diesen Tälern, diesen Bergen weit schlimmer als die Pest getobt, ich selbst habe das Gift an Tausende gegeben, sie welkten hin, ich muss erleben, dass man die frechen Mörder lobt."

("Here was the medicine, the patients died and nobody asked who recovered, thus we have ravaged with infernal electuaries, in these valleys, these mountains, much worse than the pest, I myself have given the poison to thousands, they withered away, I must experience that the unabashed murderers are being praised.")
Goethe calls school medicine practitioners who are giving people the electuaries, that is, the poisonous substances, unabashed murderers, who still today are being praised.

Here I can and also must refer to our publications, because we have, as the first to do so, put the central revealing question to modern medicine and have documented and commented on the resulting confessions.

At www.klein-klein-aktion.de and www.klein-klein-verlag.de you will find all the relevant information on this.

Why have precisely you hit on this millenium swindle?

I have studied molecular biology.

In the course of my studies I demonstrated the existence of the first virus in the sea, in a sea alga. This proof was first published in a scientific publication in 1990, in accordance with the standard of the natural sciences. The virus whose existence I demonstrated reproduces itself in the alga, can leave it and reproduce itself again in other algae of this kind, without having any negative effects, and this virus stands in no connection whatsoever with any disease.

For instance in one litre of sea water, there are over 100 million viruses of various kinds very different to each other. Fortunately, the health authorities and the doctors have not become aware of this, otherwise there since long would have been a law permitting sea bathing only for persons attired in total body condoms.

Biological structures which would do anything negative however have never been seen. The basis of biological life is togetherness, is symbiosis, and in this there is no place for war and destruction. War and destruction in biological life is something purported by sick and criminal brains.

In the course of my studies, I and others have not been able to find proof of the existence of diseasecausing viruses anywhere. Later we have discoursed on this publicly and have called on people not to believe us either but to check out themselves whether or not there are diseasecausing viruses.

Out of this there arose the klein-klein action, which since 5 years back has been asking the health authorities for proof and which finally has gotten admission of and certainty of the fact that there is no proof of dieseasecausing viruses and no proof of a benefit of vaccination. In order to enable us to make these results publicly known without falsification of them, we founded the klein-klein-verlag (publishing house) three years ago.

What viruses are there at all, then, and what are they doing?

Structures which you can characterize as viruses there are in many species of bacteria and in simple life forms, similar to the bacteria. They are elements of together-living of different cells in a common cell type which have remained independent. This is called a symbiosis, an endosymbiosis, which has arisen in the course of the process of different cell types' and structures' combining, an endosymbiosis which has brought forth the present cell type, that type of cells of which humans, animals and plants consist.

As are the bacteria in all our cells, which are breathing away our oxygen, the mitochondria, or the bacteria in all plants which are producing the oxygen, the chloroplasts, the viruses are component parts of cells.

Very important: Viruses are component parts of very simple organisms, for instance of the confervacea type of algae, a particular species of a one-celled chlorella alga and of very many bacteria. As existing there, these viral component parts are called phages. In complex organisms however, in particular in humans, or in animals or plants, such structures which you might call viruses have never been seen.

In contrast to the bacteria in our cells, the mitochondria, or the bacteria in every plant, the chloroplasts, which cannot leave the common cell, since they are dependent on the metabolism of the common cell, viruses can leave the cell, since they are not carrying out any survival-vital tasks within the cell.

Viruses, thus, are component parts of the cell which have turned their entire metabolism over to the common cell and therefore can leave the cell. Outside the common cell, they are helping other cells, in that they are transferring construction and energy substances. Any other function of theirs has never been observed.

Those actual viruses which have been scientifically demonstrated to exist are performing, in the very complex processes of interactions of different cells, a helping, a supporting and in no case a destructive function.

Also in the case of diseases, actually neither in the diseased organism nor in a bodily fluid has any structure which you could characterize as a virus ever been seen or isolated. The proposition that there is any sick-making virus whatsoever is a transparent swindle, a fatal lie with dramatic consequences.

With this, you are not maintaining that the dangerous AIDS virus too is only a virtual one, are you?

Not only I am maintaining that the so-called AIDS virus "HIV" has never been scientifically demonstrated to exist, but only is being maintained to exist because of a purported consensus. The Bundesgesundheitsministerin, the Minister for Public Health in Germany, Ulla Schmidt, wrote on 05.01.2004 to the Member of Parliament (Bundestagsabgeordneten) Rudolf Kraus:
"Of course the Human Immunodeficiency Virus is considered - in international scientific consensus - to be scientifically demonstrated to exist."
Today, after citizens in the course of many years time and again have asked the health authorities here in Germany for scientific proof of the existence of the purported sick-making viruses, the health authorities are no longer maintaining that any virus whatsoever purportedly causing a disease has been directly proven to exist.

In an ongoing process of petitioning to the Bundestag (German parliament), the Ministry of Public Health passed the bucket of responsibility on such matters on to the Ministry of Research. The Ministry of Research now is taking up the absurd standpoint that the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of science prohibits the state from checking on that which science maintains.

But that is absurd. That would mean that the state is surrendering us, helpless and protectionless, into the hands of an uncontrolled science which can do and cause to be done anything it wants. Are you really of the opinion that the state is exposing us in such a way?

I do not have an opinion here. Concerning these matters, I can only see and point to the facts. We are experiencing in the present bird flu panic that the state, contrary to its knowledge, in Germany is surrendering the population into the hands of some persons or other who are camouflaging themselves as scientists. An enforced chemotherapy is being planned, and next spring the entire German population is to be forcibly vaccinated twice against the purported bird flu phantom.

But neither has ever a bird flu virus been demonstrated to exist, nor has the existence of any virus whatsoever that would have anything to do with anybody's falling ill been demonstrated. Such viruses do not exist. Precisely in the same manner as the minister admitted, concerning the purported AIDS virus, they are being maintained to exist because of an international scientific consensus.

But the bird flu virus H5N1, dangerous to humans, was quite recently very precisely demonstrated, in an English laboratory, to exist!

If ever a virus coming from a concrete body or a bodily fluid, for instance from birds, has been proven to exist, then any average scientist can check out, in any average laboratory, within a day, whether this virus is present in for instance a dead animal. This however has never occurred, and on the contrary, indirect test methods which are telling absolutely nothing are being used.

For instance, it's being maintained that there are antibodies which would combine with the body of the purported virus and only with that, and that then by there having occurred a combination between body and antibody, the existence of the purported virus has been demonstrated.

In reality, those purported antibodies are soluble blood albumins, which play a central role in the tightmaking of cells which are growing and dividing and in the healing of wounds.

These blood albumins, also called globulins, in a test-tube containing corresponding concentrations of acids and bases, minerals and solvents, will combine arbitrarily with other albumins. Thus you can make any sample taken from an animal or a person test arbitrarily positive or negative. It's complete, and this must be quite clearly said too, criminal, wilfulness.

Also if it is maintained that, by means of a biochemical multiplication technique called polymerase chain reaction (PCR), the so-called gene substance of the virus can be multiplied and thus be proven to exist, this is a swindle, since firstly, there nowhere exists a gene substance of a diseasecausing virus, to which one might compare the artificially multiplied particles of gene substance, and secondly, only such parts of gene substances get multiplied which already existed in beforehand in those fluids which are being used for indirectly demonstrating the existence of the purported virus.

And it's quite simple:
A thousand pieces of indirect proof, corn circles for instance, do not make an UFO either. You don't even have to know English, so as to read those publications to which the virus swindlers are referring, in order to see for yourself that nowhere in them does a virus appear: If you ask those scientists for proof of the existence of the purported viruses, for instance that of H5N1, you will get only evasions in return and never a concrete answer.

On TV we have heard time and again that the investigations were carried out in an English laboratory. The name of that English laboratory the public has not gotten to know. It's the reference laboratory of the EU for bird flu, in Weybridge. I have asked the scientists several times for the pieces of proof of the existence of the H5N1 virus. They have replied to me only once, and after that never again, and wrote that they did not understand my question.

To the World Health Organization and in particular to the bird flu pandemic co-ordinator, the German Klaus Stöhr, I also have written several times and asked for proof of the existence of the bird flu virus. Neither the WHO nor Klaus Stöhr has reacted to this.

But what does this H5N1, which makes the whole world tremble, mean?

The "H" in H5N1 stands for haemaglutinin, the "N" stands for neuraminidase.

The pseudovirologists are maintaining that in the protective coat of influenza viruses, there are albumins of the type haemaglutinin and albumins of the type of the enzyme neuraminidase.

As haemaglutinin, in biochemistry the most diverse substances are being referred to, not only albumins, which are causing the red blood-corpuscles to lump together with each other.

The pseudovirologists have jointly agreed that in the protective coat of influenza viruses there supposedly are 15 different kinds of albumins having the property of a haemaglutinin. The "5" here stands for Type Five of a purported albumin, whose existence, again, is also only being demonstrated indirectly.

Now in order to prove the existence of an influenza virus, in the laboratory red blood-corpuscles are mixed with samples in which there supposedly is the purported virus. If the red blood-corpuscles lump together, then it is maintained that a haemaglutinin in an influenza virus must be the cause of this, without there ever having been isolated a virus from - not to speak of, there ever having been seen a virus in - such a sample or from/in such a mixture.

>From the way in which the lumping together occurs the pseudovirologists then conclude, precisely in the manner of the seers in the cartoon Asterix and Obelix, which type of haemaglutinin, supposedly, has been found. For this, these scientists have available a multitude of test procedures, which by their construction ascertain that precisely that type of haemaglutinin which the "testing" scientist already has assumed in advance would be present becomes indicated too.

Precisely the same is the case with the enzyme neuraminidase, which is maintained to be a component part of the protecting hood of influenza viruses. Here, 9 different types are being maintained by the pseudovirologists to exist. In reality the neuraminidase is an enzyme which by the separating off of parts of an aminosugar called neuramin acid regulates that surface tension which is decisive for the functioning of the respective metabolism. Analogously to the "viral" haemaglutinin there is a multitude of corrupt test procedures which "demonstrate" that result, that is, "the existence of" precisely that type of neuraminidase, which the "seeing" virologist already had assumed in advance.

Therefore it is also no wonder that that turkey cock, belonging to the 73 years old farmer Dimitris Kominaris of the East Aegean island Inousses, which ostensibly died of H5N1, has vanished without a trace, that at the reference laboratory in question demonstrably no sample from Greece has arrived either, and that the clairvoyant media however have reported that a first sample has confirmed the suspicion.

For demonstrating the existence of H5N1, really no sample is necessary either, since, as is the case with all purported contagious diseases, it is a question of a planned action, intended for political reasons to induce fear.

In the media, photos of bird flu viruses and influenxa viruses constantly are being shown. Some of these photos show round formations. Are those not viruses?

No! Firstly, those round formations which supposedly are influenza viruses are, as every molecular-biologist can see, artificially produced particles consisting of fats and albumins. The layman can check on this by asking for a scientific publication in which these pictures are reproduced and described and the composition of the formations shown is documented. Such a publication does not exist.

Secondly, those pictures which supposedly show bird flu viruses in reality show, as every biologist can make out without any doubt about it, quite normal component parts of cells, or even show complete cells which happen to be in the process of exporting or importing cell and metabolism component parts. Again, the layman can check on this very precisely, by asking for those publications on which those photos are based and from which they originate: He will never receive such publications. The scaremongerers' craftguild is loth to expose its trade basis, the swindles with laboratory and animal experiments.

If you ask the picture agencies or a news agency such as the dpa from where they are getting these photos of theirs, then they will refer you to the American contagious-disease authority the CDC of the Pentagon. >From this CDC it is that the only photo of the purported H5N1 originates too.

This photo shows the length section cut and also the cross section cut of tubes in cells which have been caused to die in a test-tube. These small tubes in the professional language are called microtubuli, and serve the transport and communication in the cell and in the process of cell division.

It has been demonstrated however that H5N1 kills hen embryos and can be cultivated in eggs. Where is the rat to be smelled in this?

These experiments have been used already since over 100 years back, in order to "prove" the existence of several "viruses" quite different from each other, for instance also that of the purported smallpox virus. In these experiments, extracts are being injected through the eggshell into the embryo. Depending on how much is injected and where in the embryo the supposedly "virus-infected" extract is injected, the embryo dies faster or more slowly. It would die from such injections in precisely the same manner too if the extracts were sterlilized in advance.

This killing then is presented by those virologists, firstly, as direct proof of the existence of the respective virus, secondly as proof of the possibility of multiplying the virus, and thirdly and simultaneously as proof of the isolation of the virus.

>From hen embryos killed in this way, millions of which are dying silently each year at the vaccine manufacturers', various vaccine substances are being produced.

Besides hen embryos, also cells are being killed in test-tubes in order to present the dying of these cells as proof of the existence, the multiplying and the isolation of a diseasecausing virus.

Nowhere however is a virus being isolated in this manner, photographed in an electrone microscope and its component parts described in processes of the type called electrophoresis.

But then what does kill the animals in the animal experiments, if it is not the H5N1?

Concerning this too you only have to take a look at the publications in which these animal experiments are described. Hens are being slowly suffocated to death within three days by means of administering a fluid to them through the windpipe tube.

In small Java monkeys, 30 days before the purported infection temperature transmitters are being placed in the abdomen, 5 days before the purported infection they are fixated in an air sub-pressure chamber and at the point of the so-called infection, an amount of liquid corresponding to 6 schnaps glasses for humans is pressed through the tube in the windpipe of these young animals. Parts of the same extract from dying, that is putrifying, cells are sprayed into both eyes and into the tonsils of the animals. In many cases, suffocation attacks are caused in the animals by means of rinsing the bronchial tubes, etc. The resulting damage and destruction is then presented as the result of H5N1.

I have informed the earlier Minister for Consumer Protection, Künast, and the present minister, Trittin, who are presenting themselves as protectors of animals, about this, via their personal reporters. There was no reaction.

But the virus of the Spanish flu has been reconstructed genetically and also has been demonstrated to be a bird flu virus!

What, so to speak, was reconstructed genetically is nothing else than a model of the genetic substance of an influenza virus. An influenza virus has never been isolated. A genetic substance of an influenza virus has never been isolated either. All that has been done is multiplying gene substance by means of the biochemical multiplication method "poliymerase chain reaction". With this method it also is possible to multiply arbitrarily new, never earlier existing, short pieces of gene substance.

Thus it's possible with this technique also to manipulate the genetic fingerprint, that is, to test someone as identical to or different from a sample that has been "found". Only if very much of gene substance that can be compared is found will the genetic fingerprint, provided the process is carried out properly, provide a certain probability of a match.

Dr Jeffery Taubenberger, from whom the allegation of a reconstruction of the 1918 pandemic virus originates, works for the US-American army and has worked for more than 10 years on producing, on the basis of samples from different human corpses, short pieces of gene substance by means of the biochemical multiplication technique PCR. Out of the multitude of produced pieces he has selected those which came closest to the model of the genetic substance of the idea of an influenza virus, and has published these.

In no corpse however was a virus seen or isolated or was a piece of gene substance from a such isolated. By means of the PCR technique there were produced out of nothing pieces of gene substance whose earlier existence in the corpse could not be demonstrated.

If viruses had been present, then these could have been isolated, and out of them their gene substance could have been isolated too; there would have been no necessity for anyone to produce laboriously, by means of PCR technique - with clearly a swindle intention - a patchwork quilt of a model of the genetic substance of the idea of an influenza virus.

How can a layman check on this?

About these short pieces of gene substance, which in the sense of genetics are not complete and which do not even suffice for defining a gene, it is being maintained that they together would make up the entire gene substance of an influenza virus.

In order to see through this swindle one only has to be able to add up the published length pieces, in order to ascertain that the sum of the lengths of the individual pieces, which supposedly makes up the entire viral gene substance of the purported influenza virus, does not make up the length of the idea of the genome of the influenza virus model.

Even simpler it is to ask in what publication you can find the electrone microscope photo of this supposedly reconstructed virus. There is no such publication.

It's being maintained that these experiments have demonstrated that this reconstructed virus from 1918 would kill very effectively. What might be untrue in this?

If I inject into a hen embryo a mixture of artificially-produced pieces of gene substance and albumins and aim at the centre of its heart, then it dies faster than if I only inject the mixture into the embryo peripherically.

If I expose cells in a test-tube to a quantity of artificially-produced gene substance and albumins, then they die faster than under the standard conditions for cells' dying in a test-tube, something which "normally" is being presented as proof of the existence, as proof of the isolation and as proof of the multiplication of the purported virus.

Based on this artificially produced gene substance, which is presented as viral, models of albumins are being made with computers. Procceding from these albumin models, the appearance of the entire virus is reconstructed with computers.

That is all, but the whole world believes that you can reconstruct viruses in laboratories. Thus it's no wonder either that, referring to statements by the CIA and by the British secret service MI6, it is being maintained that in North Korea, the communist regime would now be producing flu viruses even more deadly than H5N1.

What conclusions do you draw from this?

Since the head of the supposed al-Qaida, Bin Laden, has not been found, al-Qaida in Arabic only means The Road and nothing had been heard of this organization before the hotcleaning-up of the collapse-endangered skyscrapers in New York, since, just as the supposed smallpox viruses have not been found, there were not found any mass destruction weapons of Saddam's, which were the reason for the second Iraq war, and now once more some deadly viruses are being maintained to exist, it should be obvious who in reality are the terrorists and who in reality are the suicide bombers: All who are participating in the virus panic and are contributing to it!

In the pandemic plans a possible breakdown of the provisioning and of public order, in connection with the declaring of a bird flu pandemic, has been envisaged by the WHO. The estimates of up to 100 million deaths should be taken seriously.

As being under threat I see all inhabitants of homes for the aged, who in a breaking-out of chaos and a breakdown of the provisioning systems, and with those the public order, will be the first, and besides small children the most protectionless and defenceless, victims. Hardly possble to depict would it be, if the contagious-disease makers would declare the emergency already during the winter.

Does then the substance Tamiflu, which is now being purchased with tax money and stocked, protect people from the bird flu?

That this substance protects against a flu nobody is maintaining.

Tamiflu is supposed to function as a neuraminidase-restraining agent. It restrains in an organism the function of the sugar neuraminidase acid, which is co-responsible for the surface tension in the cells.

Those side effects which are noted on the instruction slips accompanying packages of Tamiflu are almost identical to the symptoms of a serious influenza. On a large scale, thus, medicines are now being stored which cause precisely the same symptoms as those which appear in an actual so-called influenza - and which will discontinue, with a doctor, after seven days, and without a doctor after a week.

If Tamiflu is administered to sick persons, then this is likely to cause far more serious symptoms than those of a serious influenza. If a pandemic is stated to exist, then many people will take this medicine at the same time. In that case we will actually have unequivocal symptoms of a Tamiflu epidemic. Then also deaths caused by Tamiflu are to be expected, and this will then be presented as evidence of the dangerous nature of the bird flu and evidence of how anxious is the state that people should be in good health.

In this, the well-tested AIDS pattern is being repeated. In Spain it's noted on the instruction slips accompanying packages of AIDS medicine that it is not known whether the symptoms are caused by the medicine or by the virus.

Then you will also not recommend any general vaccination or the specially developed vaccination against the bird flu?

I am not recommending any madness.

Every vaccination substance contains poisonous substances which have effects during a long time resulting in smaller or larger permanent injury. The infection protection law requires, as necessary precondition for a vaccination's being justified, the "is", the fact of there existing something which causes a disease, for instance a virus.

Since none of the so-called diseasecausing viruses can be, nor should be, maintained to exist, there can also be no lawful vaccinations against influenza, and none against bird flu either.

Every vaccination which has occurred in Germany after the infection protection law became operative on 01.01.2000 is a crime of serious bodily assault. Of course I am not recommending people to surrender themselves to become victims of lawbreakings and crimes.

What in your opinion lies behind all this which we are now experiencing here?

About this one can only speculate.

Of course the pharmaceutial industry is happy about the big business with the bird flu panic. But in fact every individual lies behind this madness. The situation is what it is. The situation could only come to this because we as citizens have tolerated that our state acts in this way against people, although our state is formally a democratic state built on law.

Anyone who waits for the pharmaceutical industry to do something for the good of people concerning this will wait in vain. "Wer sich jetzt nicht wehrt, der lebt verkehrt" - "You don't now put up a defence? Your life won't have the right sense."

Anyone can ask the Ministry for Consumer Protection, the Ministry for Public Health etc for that scientific proof which would justify the bird flu panic.

Anyone who waits for "the others" to do something should not wonder if those others do nothing and the situation does not remain what it is but even gets much worse. In the final instance we, the citizens, stand behind this, in that we for years without doing anything about it have seen the whole madness around us and have tolerated it. Here we must begin to take social responsibility, if we do not want to surrender and sacrifice ourselves to the total domination and chaos of an uncontrolled pseudoscience.

Must then in your opinion science be combated?

The domination of the pseudoscience must be overcome by means of a social science which is characterized by its obligation to truthfulness and by the possibility to check on it and to control its actions.

The language of the present university medical science reveals that in it, a democratically-lawfully uncontrolled domination stands in the foreground, when the school medicine practitioners and the state are referring, as justification for their actions, to the "dominating opinion in medical science" to which we supposedly have to submit also if this domination maintains that the babies are brought by the stork or that the earth is a flat disk.

We have however no reason to complain.

We it is, is it not, who are tolerating this governmental line of conduct. Anyway nobody should wonder, if he continues to tolerate that we must surrender ourselves to this domination, as we are doing now faced with the absurdity of the bird flu allegations, if then he wakes up one morning and with horror finds that he is dead: Killed by that domination which he as citizen of a democratic state built on law has tolerated.

In a democratic state built on law, the bird flu panic would be just as impossible as would AIDS and vaccinations. We the citizens must bring about the state built on law. Then not only AIDS but also the pseudoscience and the bird flu will have no chance. I can only say: Don't give the bird flu a chance! Don't believe the lies you are being told! Check things out! Use your reason!

For those who want to do something: At www.agenda-leben.de there are suggestions.

[The German original: © 2005 FAKTuell ®]

Note: I'm bringing this translation in its present form as made by me, despite the fact that my knowledge both of biology and of medicine is very slight and neither English nor German is a mother tongue of mine, because I hold this interview to be important. Hoping that I've made no big errors in the above, I shall submit it to checking-out by some others who, I believe, will find all such if there are some anyway. All readers of this too are very welcome to send me their criticisms. If it turns out that major corrections and/or improvements are needed, I shall incorporate them here at my homepage in a version or in versions later, which will then be dated too. Here's my e-mail address again. - RM, 22.02.2006


Rolf Martens
Malmö, Sweden