Before we discuss how modern medical interventions like epidurals and synthetic oxytocin (Pitocin) can interfere with undisturbed birth, we need to understand the hormones of birth.

The natural regulation of hormone balance is an exceedingly sophisticated and complex process. And although we know the basics of how hormone regulation works, there is still much we don’t understand.

I’ve argued against using supplemental hormones to as a first step in treating hormone imbalances for exactly this reason. Whenever we take hormones, we run the risk of disrupting the delicate negative feedback system that regulates our own internal production of these hormones.

The image that comes to mind is a monkey in the cockpit of the space shuttle pushing a bunch of buttons.

Perhaps that’s an exaggeration, but the point is that any intervention that risks disrupting natural hormone balance and regulation is apt to cause problems. And there’s no time that’s more true than during pregnancy and childbirth.

The hormones of birth

The hormones of birth include estrogen and progesterone, oxytocin, beta-endorphins, prolactin and catecholamines (epinephrine/adrenaline and norepinephrine/noradrenaline).

Estrogen and progesterone

Estrogen and progesterone are the main hormones involved in “setting the scene” for birth, including activating, inhibiting and reorganizing other hormone systems. They both play a crucial role in the initiation of labor. For example, the placental production of estriol increases by more than 1,000 times close to the onset of labor, and progesterone production increases 10-18 times higher.

Estrogen has also been shown to increase the number of uterine oxytocin receptors and gap junctions in late pregnancy, which is thought to prepare the uterus for contractions in labor.

Oxytocin

Oxytocin is the hormone associated with the contractions of labor and birth in all mammalian species. It has also been referred to as the hormone of love because of its involvement with sexual activity, orgasm, birth and breastfeeding.

In the context of undisturbed birth, Odent refers to oxytocin as the hormone of “forgetting oneself”.¹ This is crucial because a fundamental aspect of an undisturbed birth is the sensation of an altered state of consciousness: “being transported” or “going to another world”.

Oxytocin is stored in the anterior pituitary and released in pulses every 3-5 minutes during early labor, becoming more frequent as labor progresses. Keep this in mind when we discuss the differences between natural oxytocin and synthetic oxytocin (Pitocin) used to induce labor in hospitals.

Current research suggests that oxytocin is the initiator of the rhythmic contractions of early labor, while prostaglandins produced locally in the uterus assume that role later in labor.

Some recent studies have found that oxytocin produced by the fetus may directly stimulate the mother’s uterine muscle, suggesting that the baby may be responsible for initiating labor.

Finally, oxytocin plays several important roles after birth. High levels of oxytocin produced as the baby stimulates the mother’s breast help keep the uterus contracted and prevent postpartum hemorrhage. Oxytocin mediates the “milk ejection reflex” which allows for successful breastfeeding. And, as the hormone of love, oxytocin promotes the development of a strong bond between mother and baby.

Beta-endorphin

Beta-endorphin is a naturally occurring opiate that acts to restore homeostasis (internal balance). It is secreted by the pituitary gland in times of pain and stress. It activates the mesocorticolimbic dopamine reward system and produces pleasure in association with sex, birth and breastfeeding.

Studies suggest beta-endorphin increases tolerance to pain and suppresses the immune system, both of which are important during birth.

Beta-endorphin is similar to the addictive opiates morphine and heroin in that it induces feelings of pleasure, euphoria and dependency. Beta-endorphin levels during labor reach similar levels to those found in male endurance athletes during maximal exercise on a treadmill.

High levels of beta-endorphin help the mother to tolerate the pain of labor and nudge the her into the altered state of consciousness that characterizes an undisturbed birth. After the baby has been born, beta-endorphin (like oxytocin) reinforces the mother-infant bond and contributes to ecstatic feelings for both.

Finally, beta-endorphin promotes the release of prolactin during labor, which prepares the mother’s breast for lactation and aids in lung maturation for the baby.

Prolactin

Prolactin is known as the mothering hormone. It’s released by the pituitary during pregnancy and lactation, and it prepares a pregnant woman’s breasts for lactation.

During breastfeeding, prolactin levels influence sucking intensity, duration and frequency. Researchers believe prolactin (together with oxytocin) is responsible for the elevation of mood and feeling of calm mothers experience after breastfeeding.

Prolactin is also believed to play an important role in maternal behavior after birth via its effect on the nursing mother’s brain. It has been referred to as the hormone of “submission” or “surrender”. In the breastfeeding relationship, it may encourage the mother to put her baby’s needs before her own.

According to Sarah Buckley, M.D.²:

There are more than three hundred known bodily effects of prolactin, including induction of maternal behavior, increase in appetite and food intake, suppression of fertility, stimulation of motor and grooming activity, reduction of the stress response, stimulation of oxytocin secretion and opioid activity, alteration of the sleep-wake cycle and increase in REM sleep, reduction of body temperature, and pain relief. Prolactin, along with growth hormone, is one of the hormones of growth and lactation and as such has a crucial influence in the development and function of the immune system.

And those are just the functions we know about!

Catecholamines (CA)

These are the “fight or flight” hormones epinephrine (adrenaline) and norepinephrine (noradrenaline). They’re produced in response to hunger, fear and cold as well as excitement.

During labor, maternal CA levels gradually rise, peaking right before transition (the contractions which finish dilating the cervix in the first stage of labor).

This tells us the stress hormones are an important part of a healthy birth. However, if a woman’s epinephrine levels are too high (reflecting activation of her “fight or flight” response) early in labor, uterine contractions will be inhibited and labor will be slowed or even stopped completely.

High levels of CA can stimulate uterine contractions, which contribute to what Michel Odent calls the “Fetus Ejection Reflex“. According to Odent this reflex occurs at transition and almost always follows an undisturbed birth, probably because CA levels must be low early in labor for it to happen optimally.

On the other hand, high levels of CA too early in labor (which would be triggered by activation of the woman’s “fight or flight” system in response to fear or perceived danger) have been shown to inhibit uterine contractions.

This is yet another example of the exquisite regulation of hormones by the body and the danger of interfering with this natural process. CA levels must be just right at all stages for an undisturbed birth. If the mother is afraid or feels she is threatened or in danger early on, labor will be inhibited. I suspect this happens fairly often in the hospital setting. On the other hand, if the natural increase of CA levels that should occur later in labor is blocked (by painkillers or other drugs), then the fetal ejection reflex will not be stimulated and delivery may be more difficult.

Now that we have a better understanding of the hormones involved in birth, we can move on to exploring how modern medical interventions disrupt the natural regulation of these hormones and interfere with “undisturbed birth”.

Articles in this series:

• Natural childbirth I: is homebirth more dangerous than hospital birth?
• Natural childbirth IIa: is ultrasound necessary and effective during pregnancy?
• Natural childbirth IIb: ultrasound not as safe as commonly thought
• Natural childbirth III: why undisturbed birth?
• Natural childbirth IV: the hormones of birth
• Natural childbirth V: epidural side effects and risks
• Natural childbirth VI: Pitocin side effects and risks
• Natural childbirth VII: Cesarean risks and complications

“The routine use of ultrasound in pregnancy is the biggest uncontrolled experiment in history.”
Beverly Beech, birth activist

In the first article in this series on natural childbirth, I presented evidence that – contrary to popular belief – hospital birth is no safer than home birth.

I’d like to begin this next article by telling you what it is not. It is not a blanket condemnation of ultrasound, nor is it a judgment of women who choose routine ultrasound during their pregnancy. It is not an argument against using ultrasound to investigate suspected problems, or to detect potential abnormalities, provided the woman is adequately informed.

The purpose of this article is to clarify the issues surrounding ultrasound’s use in clinical practice, to critically examine the clinical benefit of routine prenatal ultrasound, and to raise awareness of the potential risks associated with repeated ultrasound scans.

This was going to be a very long article, so I decided to split it into two parts. In part A I will discuss the use of ultrasound in clinical practice and examine whether it improves birth outcomes. In part B, I will review studies on the safety of ultrasound as it is used today, and make recommendations for expecting mothers.

History of ultrasound and use in clinical practice

Ultrasound was originally developed in WWII to detect enemy submarines. After the war in 1955, a surgeon in Glasgow named Ian Donald began to experiment with it for medical uses. Using beefsteaks as “control” subjects, he scanned the abdominal tumors he had removed from his patients and found that different tissues gave different patterns of sound wave echo. He quickly realized the potential of ultrasound for examining a growing baby in utero.

Initially, ultrasound was used only to investigate possible problems. For example, if there was bleeding in early pregnancy, it would be used to determine whether miscarriage was inevitable. Later in pregnancy, if breech or twins were suspected, ultrasound would be used to confirm that suspicion. In these cases, ultrasound can be very useful for a woman and her caregivers.

However, over the years ultrasound has come to be used as routine scan at 18-20 weeks for all women. This is referred to as “routine prenatal ultrasound”, or RPU for short. It involves scanning all pregnant women – whether a problem is suspected or not – in the hope of improving birth outcomes.

As often happens in medicine, techniques which may be of value to a small percentage of people slowly become adopted for routine use without prior study of benefits. A perfect example of this is the alarmingly common prescription of statin drugs for women, children and men without pre-existing heart disease, in spite of the fact that they’ve only been shown to be effective for a small segment of the population: middle-aged men with pre-existing heart disease.

The problem with this approach, of course, is that when we perform a procedure or administer a treatment to a segment of the population without properly testing it beforehand, we are essentially conducting an uncontrolled scientific experiment on that population – often without their understanding and consent. And in this case, we are performing that uncontrolled experiment on two of the most vulnerable populations: pregnant women and babies in the womb.

Some physicians and researchers have been questioning the wisdom of performing such an experiment for decades. In 1987, UK radiologist H.B. Meire remarked:

The casual observer might be forgiven for wondering why the medical profession is now involved in the wholesale examination of pregnant patients with machines emanating vastly different powers of energy which is not proven to be harmless to obtain information which is not proven to be of any clinical value by operators who are not certified as competent to perform the operations.

More recently, in 2010, the prestigious Cochrane Collaboration reviewed the available evidence on routine prenatal ultrasound (RPU) and concluded:

Existing evidence does not provide conclusive evidence that the use of routine umbilical artery Doppler ultrasound, or combination of umbilical and uterine artery Doppler ultrasound in low-risk or unselected populations benefits either mother or baby.

Despite the lack of evidence supporting RPU’s use in clinical practice, ultrasound is almost universally seen as a safe and effective procedure, and scans have become a “rite of passage” (in the words of Sarah Buckley) for pregnant women in most developed countries.

In the U.S., an estimated 65 to 70 percent of pregnant women have a formal scan in a diagnostic clinic, and many more women are scanned by their OB/GYN as part of their pregnancy visit.

Is ultrasound as effective and safe as we’ve been led to believe?

In order to answer that question, we have to distinguish between different uses of ultrasound. As I said earlier, ultrasound scanning can be a useful diagnostic tool when abnormalities are suspected. I have no argument with using it in this manner. The question I’d like to investigate here is whether routine prenatal ultrasound – when no abnormalities are suspected – is necessary and effective.

RPU is used today for several reasons:

1. To predict the birth due date
2. To determine the sex of the baby
3. To detect potential abnormalities
4. To identify placenta previa (low lying placenta)
5. To assess specific markers, such as the length of woman’s cervix and the amount of amniotic fluid at the end of pregnancy

It’s almost as if all pregnancies are immediately suspected to be abnormal until proven otherwise. In the words of TM Marteau ¹:

“Before the development of prenatal testing for fetal abnormality the fetus was assumed to be healthy, unless there was evidence to the contrary. The presence of prenatal testing and monitoring shifts the balance towards having to prove the health or normality of a fetus.”

The important question is: is RPU necessary and effective for these uses? Does it improve specific birth outcomes like perinatal mortality or morbidity?

Routine prenatal ultrasound is not recommended by researchers and major organizations

In general, RPU is accurate for predicting birth date when scans are performed in the early stages of pregnancy. The estimated due date (EDD) calculated by a scan at 7-8 weeks will be accurate to plus or minus 3-4 days.

However, calculations of EDD based on a woman’s menstrual cycle can be just as accurate.

What about detecting abnormalities? Studies show that RPU detects between 35-80% of the 1 in 50 babies that have significant abnormalities at birth. The larger centers with better trained sonographers have rates toward the higher end of the scale, but even major centers miss 40% of abnormalities.

That’s because many abnormalities are difficult or impossible to detect with RPU. Heart and kidney problems are unlikely to be picked up, as are some markers for Down syndrome. Cerebral palsy, autism, and other markers of intellectual disability are impossible to detect.

Then there’s the small but significant chance that an abnormal finding may be a false positive. A UK survey showed that for 1 in 200 babies aborted for supposed major abnormalities, the diagnosis on post-mortem was less severe than predicted by ultrasound, and the termination was probably unjustified. In the same survey, 2.4 percent of babies diagnosed with major malformations – but not aborted – had conditions that were significantly over- or underdiagnosed.

Two other studies have shown false positive results in roughly 10% of babies diagnosed with structural abnormalities. And in some cases, the abnormalities spontaneously resolve without intervention.

In addition to false positives, there are also cases that are difficult to interpret, and the outcome for the baby is unknown. This uncertainty can cause considerable stress and anxiety for the mother, which in turn adversely affects the developing baby. In one study involving women at higher risk, a full 10 percent of scans were uncertain. And in that same study, mothers with uncertain diagnoses were still anxious three months after the birth of their baby.

Ultrasound scanning for placenta previa is mostly accurate, but almost all women who test positive for it on a scan will be unnecessarily worried. Studies show that the placenta will move up and not cause problems during birth for 80 to 100 percent of women, and that detection of placenta previa by RPU is not safer than detection during labor.

All of this might explain why organizations like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommend scans only for specific reasons, including uncertain due dates and fetal assessment, and advises that routine prenatal scans are cost-effective only when done by ultrasound technicians working in high-level centers.

In Canada, practice guidelines recommend only a single midpregnancy scan and stress that information on risks and benefits must be provided and informed consent obtained.

Routine prenatal ultrasound does not improve birth outcomes

Studies on RPU over the years have consistently shown that it does not improve birth outcomes as measured by clinical endpoints such as perinatal mortality and morbidity.

A 1993 meta-analysis of all randomized trials prior to that date covering 16,000 births showed no improvement in the condition of babies measured by APGAR score when ultrasound was used compared to those who did not have it. There was a slight reduction in perinatal mortality in this study. However, this happened because these babies were aborted during pregnancy – not because their lives were saved. There was no increase in the number of live, healthy births from RPU.

The authors of this study concluded:

Routine ultrasound scanning does not improve the outcome of pregnancy in terms of an increased number of live births or of reduced perinatal morbidity. Routine ultrasound scanning may be effective and useful as a screening for malformation. Its use for this purpose, however, should be made explicit and take into account the risk of false positive diagnosis in addition to ethical issues.

In another 1993 review covering 15,530 births the authors found “no significant differences in maternal outcomes”. The rates of induced abortion, amniocentesis, tests of fetal well-being, external version, induction, and cesarean section and the distribution of total hospital days were similar in the two groups. They concluded:

Screening ultrasonography resulted in no clinically significant benefit.

In the same year (1993), the World Health Organization (WHO) issued a letter reviewing the studies performed on routine ultrasound to date and concluded ²:

It is fair to say that at the moment the best research shows no benefit from routine ultrasound scanning and the real possibility of serious risk. …we urge you to reconsider all present policy with regard to routine ultrasound scanning during pregnancy, based on these important scientific papers.

Articles in this series:

• Natural childbirth I: is homebirth more dangerous than hospital birth?
• Natural childbirth IIa: is ultrasound necessary and effective during pregnancy?
• Natural childbirth IIb: ultrasound not as safe as commonly thought
• Natural childbirth III: why undisturbed birth?
• Natural childbirth IV: the hormones of birth
• Natural childbirth V: epidural side effects and risks
• Natural childbirth VI: Pitocin side effects and risks
• Natural childbirth VII: Cesarean risks and complications

I’d like to bring your attention to two recently published studies which highlight the dangers of antidepressant drugs and maintaining low cholesterol levels.

Low Serum Cholesterol May Be Associated With Suicide Attempt History

I’ve written before about the association of low cholesterol with aggressive and violent behavior as well as an increased risk of suicide. A recent study published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry adds weight to the already considerable body of evidence suggesting that low cholesterol is dangerous to your health.

In this study ‘low cholesterol’ was defined as less than 160mg/dL (4.16 mmol/L). This level has been noted several times in the medical literature as a level below which suicide is more likely. And you should note that this level is well within what is considered ‘healthy’ by a cholesterol-lowering, drug pushing health industry.

This is consistent with studies showing that low blood cholesterol levels are associated with suicide and that cholesterol levels in certain areas of the brain are lower in those who commit suicide by violent means than in those who commit suicide by non-violent means.

Cholesterol is a health-promoting substance. It is a critical component of cell membranes, the precursor to all steroid hormones, a precursor to vitamin D, and the limiting factor that brain cells need to make connections with one another called synapses, making it essential to learning and memory.

If you understand the vital role cholesterol plays in health – especially in the brain – it’s not difficult to figure out why low cholesterol could increase the risk of suicide and violent behavior.

This is yet another reason to avoid cholesterol-lowering statin drugs. If you haven’t read it already, you might want to check out my post called Cholesterol Doesn’t Cause Heart Disease.

(J Clin Psychiatry October 21, 2008: e1-e8; pii: ej07m03866)

Two Antidepressants Taken During Pregnancy Linked To Heart Anomalies In Babies

In another disturbing study, researchers from Israel, Italy and Germany found that pregnant women taking two popular antidepressants, paroxetine (Paxil) and fluoxetine (Prozac), were three and four times more likely to give birth to children with heart problems.

Researchers have advised women taking the drugs to continue unless they are advised to stop by their doctor or consultant.

I’ve written extensively here about the risks of antidepressant drugs, especially for pregnant women. In my recent post Statins For Pregnant Women and Kids? I presented evidence that statin drugs can cause birth defects and changes in the brain that predispose the child to emotional problems later in life. Here’s a brief excerpt:

If you’re pregnant or considering getting pregnant, please – for the sake of your baby – speak to your psychiatrist or doctor about getting off antidepressant drugs before you conceive.

Statins for pregnant women?

Statin manufacturers, the sycophantic researchers they pay, and the shameless hucksters who sell them are always up to no good, but their recent attempts to market them to pregnant women are simply horrifying.

According to a recent news article published in Mail online, researchers from liverpool believe that taking statins during pregnancy might help women avoid caesarean sections by promoting more robust uterine contraction. They hope to begin human trials in three to five years.

Somehow, the author of this article failed to react with the shock and horror appropriate to the situation — which should be the same shock and horror with which we would react to the suggestion that pregnant women should take thalidomide to avoid morning sickness.

Back in 2004, a report in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that the use of statins in the first trimester of pregnancy was associated with birth defects, especially severe central nervous system defects and limb deformities. In fact, 20 out of 52 women exposed to statins gave birth to offspring with such defects, which represents a birth defect rate of 38 percent, nearly 20 times the background rate of birth defects!

Even before this report was published, researchers already knew that statins caused birth defects in animal experiments, and the FDA already required the drugs to carry a label warning pregnant women to stay away from them. The article linked to above stated the following:

“FDA took this action because it was recognized that fetal cholesterol synthesis was essential for development, and because animals given statins during pregnancy had offspring with a variety of birth defects,” [one of the study's authors] said.

Less than a year later, Merck and Johnson & Johnson jointly asked the FDA for permission to market an over-the-counter statin. One of the concerns about the proposal was the risk to pregnant women. USA Today reported:

The FDA classifies Mevacor and other statins as pregnancy category X, which means they are not supposed to be taken by pregnant women. Not only have category X drugs been linked to fetal abnormalities in animal or human studies, but the FDA also has declared that the benefits of taking them do not outweigh potential risks.

According to the same article, Merck made a disturbing admission:

“Of course, there will be women who take it off-label,” acknowledges Merck executive Edwin Hemwall, referring to the use of non-prescription Mevacor by women under 55.

And what could prompt women to use statins during pregnancy against recommendations? Certainly a news article declaring that statins might prevent the need for caesarean sections and their associated complications could prompt some women to do so.

So what ground-breaking research made these Liverpool researchers so confident that taking drugs associated with twenty times the normal rate of major birth defects during pregnancy might be a good idea that they put out a press release declaring this confidence to the public before any trials were even under way?

Well, according to the article:

Tests have already shown that raising levels of cholesterol interferes with womb tissue’s ability to contract.
Really. Raising levels of cholesterol. You might wonder how they accomplished that. Did they use cholesterol-raising drugs? I don’t know of any drugs that do that. Did they use egg yolks, or the dreaded dietary villain — gasp — saturated fats?

No, the story is quite different.

The apparent basis for this ridiculous statin cheerleading is a 2004 study published by researchers from the University of Liverpool in the American Journal of Physiology — Cell Physiology entitled “Increased cholesterol decreases uterine activity: functional effects of cholesterol alteration in pregnant rat myometrium.”

Rather than feeding anything to pregnant women or pregnant rats, the researchers took pregnant rats and killed them. So the first thing we can say is that statins might help you deliver a baby if your doctor kills you first.

Then they extracted the uterine tissue and either extracted cholesterol from it with a chemical solvent called methyl beta-cyclodextrin, or enriched it either with cholesterol mixed with this solvent or with LDL (which they didn’t measure for oxidation prior to use). Then they added drugs to induce contraction under either cholesterol-depleted or cholesterol-enriched conditions, and found that contraction was greater under cholesterol-depleted conditions.

So now we know that — wait, what is it we know?

Well, quite clearly, we don’t know anything that we can have any confidence has any physiological relevance at all. That is, except the fact that statins cause birth defects in animals, and they increase the rate of birth defects in humans by nearly twenty times, primarily by causing severe defects of the central nervous system and limb deformities.

To add to that, we also know that the vast majority of humans conceived with Smith-Lemli-Opitz Syndrome (SLOS), a genetic inability to synthesize enough cholesterol, die of spontaneous abortion in the first 16 weeks of gestation. Those who live long enough to be born suffer from mental retardation, autism, facial and skeletal malformations, visual dysfunctions and failure to thrive.

Statins for pregnant women? I don’t think so.

Article written by Chris Masterjohn

Statins for 8-year old children?

The American Academy of Pediatrics recently announced new recommendations for giving cholesterol-lowering drugs to children as young as eight years old. They also recommend giving low-fat milk to infants as young as one year old.

The New York Times published several articles on this, first announcing the recommendation the day the academy made it, then describing the backlash of saner doctors and other members of the public against it, and finally editorializing that while they were first “appalled” at the recommendation, after reading the report they were more dismayed at the state of our children’s health.

Concerning this frightful state of children’s health, the Times reported the following:

“We are in an epidemic,” said Dr. Jatinder Bhatia, a member of the academy’s nutrition committee who is a professor and chief of neonatology at the Medical College of Georgia in Augusta. “The risk of giving statins at a lower age is less than the benefit you’re going to get out of it.”

Dr. Bhatia said that although there was not “a whole lot” of data on pediatric use of cholesterol-lowering drugs, recent research showed that the drugs were generally safe for children.

An epidemic of what? High cholesterol? Not according to the academy’s report, which states that cholesterol levels in children declined between 1966 and 1994 and stayed the same between 1994 and 2000.

No, we are in an epidemic of obesity. As the Times reported:

But proponents say there is growing evidence that the first signs of heart disease show up in childhood, and with 30 percent of the nation’s children overweight or obese, many doctors fear that a rash of early heart attacks and diabetes is on the horizon as these children grow up.

Is there any evidence that statins lead to weight loss? If there is, I am not aware of it.

The point is immaterial, because the academy doesn’t claim to have any evidence for its position in the first place. For example, its report states the following:

Also, data supporting a particular level of childhood cholesterol that predicts risk of adult CVD do not exist, which makes the prospect of a firm evidence-based recommendation for cholesterol screening for children elusive.
And further down:

It is difficult to develop an evidence-based approach for the specific age at which pharmacologic treatment should be implemented. . . . It is not known whether there is an age at which development of the atherosclerotic process is accelerated.

In other words, they don’t know what level of cholesterol is risky and at what age it starts posing a risk, but they will nevertheless assume that there is some level that does start to pose a risk at some age and they will thus have to make a guess just what that level and what that age is.

The report discusses evidence that the “metabolic syndrome” and the “recent epidemic of childhood obesity” are tied to the risk of diabetes and heart disease and evidence that even modest weight loss at a level of five to seven percent is sufficient to prevent diabetes. Yet somehow instead of making a recommendation about how to more effectively lose weight the authors derive from this data a much less logical but much more profitable conclusion that 8-year-olds should be put on statins.

As to the recommendation to feed infants low-fat milk, the Times reported the following:

The academy also now recommends giving children low-fat milk after 12 months if a doctor is concerned about future weight problems. Although children need fat for brain development, the group says that because children often consume so much fat, low-fat milk is now appropriate.

This is rather remarkable, because the academy attributed the drop in childhood cholesterol levels to the successes of the anti-fat, anti-cholesterol campaign that began in the 1950s. But now children no longer need milkfat because they are getting plenty of fat. Well which is it? Are they getting more fat now or less fat?

Of course milkfat is also a source of choline, along with liver and egg yolks, which is essential to brain development.

But even this misses the point. Cholesterol is essential to brain development!

One of the first articles I added to my section on the functions of cholesterol was an article entitled “Learning, Your Memory, and Cholesterol.” It discusses the evidence uncovered eight years ago that cholesterol is the limiting factor for the formation of synapses, which are the connections between neurons that allow learning and memory to take place.

Lowering brain levels of cholesterol can be detrimental at any age beacause of this, but the consequences for children — whose brains are still developing at a much more rapid rate — could be much more dire.

No doubt, most researchers and medical doctors mean well and are honestly trying to help our children. But surely someone in these drug companies must know that cholesterol is necessary for brain development, and that cholesterol-lowering drugs reduce mental performance in adults. Surely they must know that if we raise our next generation of children on statins during the critical periods of brain development, we may raise a whole generation with compromised intelligence.

And if that’s the case, are they trying to dumb us down? Sometimes it seems like that’s the case.

Article written by Chris Masterjohn

THS reader Roselle sent in this question:

Is vitamin/mineral supplementation truly beneficial before & during pregnancy for women with a healthy diet?

The first thing I’d like to emphasize is the importance of this question. Adequate maternal nutrition prior to conception and during pregnancy can protect the baby from diabetes, stroke, heart disease, kidney disease and memory loss later in life.

Intuitively, most mothers know that what they eat will have a significant impact on the developing fetus. And traditional cultures have been aware of this for millennia. Special preconception and pregnancy diets have always emphasized foods that are particularly rich in certain nutrients known to promote healthy growth and development. In some cases, these groups provided special nutrients for fathers preparing to conceive as well.

Traditional cultures with access to the sea used fish eggs. Those that consumed dairy products used high-quality milk from the spring and fall when grass was green and rapidly growing. African groups whose water was low in iodine used the ashes of certain plant foods to supply this important element. These foods were always added to a foundational diet rich in liver and other organ meats, bones and skin, fats, seafood and whatever local plant foods were available.

In the Winter of 2007, Chris Masterjohn published a fantastic article called “Vitamins for Fetal Development: Conception to Birth” in the Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts Journal. Masterjohn remarks:

What are these nutrients that both modern science and traditional wisdom recognize as essential? Briefly, they include:

• Vitamin E: originally named “Fertility Factor X” in 1922 because rats could not reproduce without it. Recent research indicates it is almost certainly required for human reproduction.
• Vitamin A: vitamin A is necessary for the differentiation and patterning of all the cells, tissues, and organs within the developing body. It is especially important for the development of the communication systems between the sense organs and the brain. Vitamin A deficiency during pregnancy has been shown to produce spontaneous abortion in several different species of animals.
• Vitamin D: Vitamin D plays a role in lung development, and protects the newborn from tetany, convulsions and heart failure. Vitamin D probably plays a much larger role in fetal development than currently understood due to its interaction with vitamin A.
• Vitamin K: relatively little is known about vitamin K’s role in embryonic and fetal development compared to vitamins A & D. However, cases of birth defects that occurred with mothers taking Wafarin (which depletes the body of vitamin K) suggest that vitamin K plays an essential role in the development of proper facial proportions and the fundamental development of the nervous system.
• DHA: DHA may be necessary for the formation of neurons and for the synthesis of the important brain lipid phosphatidylserine. It is also the precursor to an important compound that protects the neurons from oxidative stress. The fetus hoards DHA from the mother and incorporates it into its brain at ten times the rate at which it can synthesize it.
• Biotin: biotin is a B vitamin that has also been called “vitamin H”. Researchers have recently discovered that marginal biotin deficiency during pregnancy is extremely common. Biotin deficiency has been shown to cause birth defects in rats. Whether this extends to humans is currently unknown, but there is little reason not to increase biotin intake during pregnancy as a precaution.
• Folate: the importance of folate during pregnancy is widely known. It is necessary for the production of new DNA, and new DNA is needed for new cells. Adequate folate intake prevents spinal cord and brain defects and increases birth weight. It may also prevent spontaneous abortion, mental retardation and deformities of the mouth, face and heart.
• Choline: a low intake of choline during pregnancy is associated with a four-fold increased risk of spinal cord and brain defects. Choline plays a direct role in the development of the brain; in particular, for the formation of neurons and synapses.
• Glycine: the amino acid glycine is “conditionally essential” during pregnancy. This means that while we can normally make enough of it ourselves to meet our needs, during pregnancy women must obtain it from the diet. It is required for protein synthesis in the fetus, and is almost certainly a limiting factor for fetal growth.

Based on the established role of the nutrients listed above, Masterjohn makes the following recommendations:

The answer to Roselle’s original question largely depends upon what is meant by “a healthy diet”. The low-fat, nutrient-depleted diet that is currently considered to be “healthy” by the medical establishment is likely to be deficient in several key nutrients, particularly the fat-soluble vitamins A, D & K and the omega-3 fatty acid DHA. However, even a nutrient-dense, whole foods diet may need to be supplemented with additional foods or additional servings of foods already in the diet.

Most of these can and should be obtained from local and organic foods. The exception is cod liver oil, which one of nature’s highest sources of vitamins A & D and a rich source of DHA as well. Not all cod liver oil is created alike, however. Most commercial brands contain synthetic vitamin A & D, which are known to be toxic at high doses. Unfortunately, this means you will have to order high-vitamin cod liver oil from a reputable company online. The brands I recommend are Green Pasture High-Vitamin Fermented Cod Liver Oil or High-Vitamin Cod Liver Oil, and Radiant Life Cod Liver Oil.

Finally, I highly recommend obtaining the Winter 2007 “Wise Traditions” journal and reading the full article by Chris Masterjohn. It will eventually be available on the Weston A. Price Foundation website, but it can take up to one year from the original publication time for an article to be posted to the website.