Update on My Condition

I have come to the conclusion that the doctors do not know why or how I got cancer, nor do they know how to get rid of the type of cancer that I have. However, this rare type of stomach cancer is generally not considered (by doctors) to be life-threatening.

I personally do not like the idea of ANY type of cancer being anywhere in MY body!

Gastric MALT lymphoma is USUALLY caused by H. pylori bacteria – which they treat by administering a regiment called, "triple therapy," which is two antibiotics and a medication, (a proton pump inhibitor, such as Omeprazole) to keep your stomach from producing acidic digestive enzymes. And, after eradicating H. pylori the gastric MALT lymphoma "usually" goes away (my gastroenterologist says in about 50% of cases, and the National Cancer Institute says in about 80%.)

But the problem is -- I have never had the H. pylori bacteria!

My oncologist treated me with the “triple therapy” regiment, even though I had two test results indicating I was negative for H. pylori bacteria. While taking all those antibiotics (2000 mg of one, and 1000 mg of a second, daily for two weeks!) I insisted on having a blood test, which is the definitive test to check for antibodies of H. pylori. The result of this test was also negative.

My oncologist now wants me to have another endoscopy and biopsy of the lymphoma, because I have undergone the "triple therapy" treatment, and the lymphoma “may have gone away.”

When I asked my oncologist why she thinks the lymphoma may have gone away -- when she admits that antibiotics CANNOT get rid of any type of cancer, including the kind I have in the mucosal lining of my stomach -- she says that she thinks some other bacteria must have caused me to get this cancer.

BUT, there are no other known bacteria, other than H. pylori, that can live in the stomach. The only way that H. pylori bacteria, which was discovered in the early 1980s, can survive in the stomach is by turning the urea enzyme into ammonia, which protects it from being destroyed by the acidic environment of the stomach!

I have done a lot of research, to learn about the link between H. pylori bacteria and the type of cancer I have. Some of my research revealed the following.

"In 1994, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified H. pylori as a carcinogen, or cancer-causing agent, despite conflicting results at the time. Since then, colonization of the stomach with H. pylori has been increasingly accepted as an important risk factor for stomach cancer.
 Epidemiology studies have also shown that individuals infected with H. pylori have an increased risk of gastric mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) lymphoma, a rare cancer of the stomach." (1)

My research indicates there is very little information about how to treat gastric MALT lymphoma when it is NOT caused by the H. pylori bacteria.

At this point, I doubt that allopathic medicine will provide any answers to my questions about my illness. My oncologist is one of the best in Austin. And, her father is the head Gastroenterologist at MD Anderson cancer hospital in Houston, which is considered one of the top 3 cancer hospitals in the U.S. (the Mayo Clinic and Sloan-Kettering are the other two.)

The best the doctors can do for me for now is take more biopsies of the lymphoma every 4 to 6 months, to measure if the cancer stays the same size or begins to grow. Other than that, we wait and see what happens with this “slow-growing” cancer. It could stay the same size and shape for years. But I find little consolation in this probability because I believe that having any type of cancer increases my risk for other, more invasive, cancers.

I am scheduled to have another endoscopy to biopsy the lymphoma in January, 2012. If, and when, the lymphoma begins to grow, surgery is the preferred medical treatment for me, I am told. Radiation therapy is usually the first option, before surgery, but my oncologist says I am not a candidate because I am not of normal weight, and I am diabetic. This is pretty much okay with me, because the idea of radiation therapy scares the hell out of me!

I want to find a way to get rid of this cancer and become healthier, in hopes of avoiding other types of cancer.

At this time, I am exploring alternative therapies, including the use of hemp oil (2) and traditional Chinese medicine. And, I am looking at each day as the gift that it truly is. One more chance to be the best person I can be, to all I meet.

(1) See “H. pylori and Cancer” posting

(2) http://phoenixtears.ca/

H. pylori and Cancer

Key Points

• Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) is a type of bacterium that is found in the stomach of about two-thirds of the world’s population (see Questions 1 and 2).

• Although H. pylori does not cause illness in most infected people, infection with this bacterium is a major risk factor for peptic ulcer disease and is responsible for the majority of ulcers of the stomach and upper small intestine (see Questions 3 and 4).

• H. pylori infection is a major cause of gastric cancer. Moreover, H. pylori infection is associated with increased risk of gastric mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) lymphoma. However, H. pylori infection may be associated with decreased risk of some other cancers, including esophageal adenocarcinoma (see Questions 6–8 and 11–13).

1. What is Helicobacter pylori?

Helicobacter pylori, or H. pylori, is a spiral-shaped bacterium that grows in the mucus layer that coats the inside of the human stomach, even though the stomach’s acidic environment and its secretion of antimicrobial peptides prevent the survival of most bacteria, viruses, and other microorganisms. To survive in this harsh environment, H. pylori secretes an enzyme called urease, which converts the chemical urea to ammonia. The production of ammonia around H. pylori neutralizes the acidity of the stomach, making it more hospitable for the bacterium. In addition, the helical shape of H. pylori allows it to burrow into the mucus layer, which is less acidic than the inside space, or lumen, of the stomach. H. pylori can also attach to the cells that line the inner surface of the stomach. Although immune cells that normally recognize and attack invading bacteria accumulate near sites of H. pylori infection, they are unable to reach the stomach lining. In addition, H. pylori has developed ways of interfering with local immune responses, making them ineffective in eliminating the bacteria (1, 2).
 H. pylori has coexisted with humans (HOW DO THEY KNOW THIS?) for many thousands of years. Scientists had believed that the stomach was a sterile organ, and this bacterium was not discovered until the 1980s. Because H. pylori is relatively newly discovered, the complex interactions between this microbe and humans, including its risks and possible benefits, and what enables it to establish stable, long-lasting infections, are still being discovered. Some bacteria that normally live in other portions of the human gastrointestinal tract actually aid their hosts by helping in the absorption of nutrients and in defense against other, more dangerous microbes.

2. How common is infection with H. pylori and how does it spread?

Human infection with H. pylori is common; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that approximately two-thirds of the world's population harbors the bacterium, with infection rates much higher in developing countries than in developed nations.
 H. pylori is thought to spread either through contaminated food and water or through direct mouth-to-mouth contact. In most populations, the bacterium is first acquired during childhood. Children living in crowded conditions and with a lower socioeconomic status are more likely to become infected.

3. What are the health consequences of H. pylori infection and can it be treated?

People who are infected with H. pylori almost always develop chronic gastritis (stomach inflammation), frequently without symptoms. In addition, between 2 and 20 percent of people infected with H. pylori will develop peptic ulcers (ulcers of the stomach and upper small intestine). H. pylori infection is also known to cause gastric (stomach) cancer and has been reported in some studies to increase the risk of some other types of cancer. However, most people infected with H. pylori will not become ill.
 H. pylori infections usually persist unless they are treated with antimicrobial therapy. This treatment often involves the use of bismuth or a proton pump inhibitor, such as Omeprazole and Lansoprazole, plus two or three different antibiotics (Tetracycline, Amoxicillin, Clarithromycin, or Metronidazole.) Efforts are also under way to develop vaccines to prevent or treat H. pylori infections.

4. How was the relationship between H. pylori infection and peptic ulcers established?

In the 1980s, scientists began to notice the presence of curved bacteria, which later became known as H. pylori, in tissue samples taken from patients with peptic ulcers. Believing that bacteria could not survive in the harsh environment of the stomach, most researchers thought these mysterious bacteria had been carried into the stomach by contaminated food or might be another harmless species of bacteria similar to others found elsewhere in the gastrointestinal tract. In addition, they believed that peptic ulcers were mainly the result of stress or eating spicy food.
 However, Australian researchers Barry J. Marshall, M.D., and J. Robin Warren, M.D., were convinced that the bacteria were actually the cause of stomach ulcers. Frustrated by the lack of a good animal model of H. pylori infection and determined to prove this hypothesis, Marshall infected himself with the bacteria. He became ill, developed inflammation of the stomach, and was able to culture the bacteria from his own ulcers, thereby proving the microbe to be the cause of stomach ulcers. In 2005, Marshall and Warren were awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine for their discovery of H. pylori and its role in peptic ulcer formation.

5. What is peptic ulcer disease?

Peptic ulcers are holes in the lining of the stomach or the upper part of the small intestine (duodenum) that extend deep into the muscle layers of these organs. An ulcer forms when the stomach wall becomes inflamed and the cells of the wall die and are shed. Stomach wall inflammation can be caused by some medications, swallowing poisons or objects, surgery, certain medical conditions, and infections. In H. pylori infection, the inflammation is caused both by bacterially produced toxins that damage the cells lining the stomach and by the immune system's response to the infection. The resulting cellular disruption and damage also allows acid to penetrate the stomach lining, further damaging the cells.
 Approximately half a million people develop peptic ulcer disease each year in the United States (3). Stomach pain similar to heartburn is the most prevalent symptom of a peptic ulcer. Other symptoms may include indigestion, loss of appetite, and vomiting. Most cases of peptic ulcer disease are caused by H. pylori infection, although aspirin and certain other medications are also known to cause peptic ulcers.

6. What is the evidence that H. pylori is a risk factor for certain cancers?

Epidemiology studies have shown that individuals infected with H. pylori have an increased risk of gastric adenocarcinoma (1, 2, 4–8) (see Question 8). In 1994, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified H. pylori as a carcinogen, or cancer-causing agent, despite conflicting results at the time. Since then, colonization of the stomach with H. pylori has been increasingly accepted as an important risk factor for stomach cancer.
 Epidemiology studies have also shown that individuals infected with H. pylori have an increased risk of gastric mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) lymphoma, a rare cancer of the stomach.
 Conversely, risk of a type of cancer in the esophagus, esophageal adenocarcinoma, may be reduced in H. pylori-infected individuals.

7. What is gastric cancer?

Gastric cancer, or cancer of the stomach, was once considered a single entity. Now, scientists divide this cancer into two main classes: gastric cardia cancer (cancer of the top inch of the stomach, where it meets the esophagus) and non-cardia gastric cancer (cancer in all other areas of the stomach). 
In each of the last 5 years, approximately 21,000 new cases of gastric cancer were diagnosed and nearly 11,000 people died of the disease in the United States. Gastric cancer is the second most common cause of cancer-related deaths in the world, killing approximately 738,000 people in 2008 (9). Gastric cancer is less common in the United States and other Western countries than in countries in Asia and South America.
Gastric cancer incidence rates overall are decreasing. However, this decline is mainly in rates of non-cardia gastric cancer (10). Gastric cardia cancer, which was once very uncommon, now constitutes nearly half of all stomach cancers among white males in the United States.
Infection with H. pylori is the major risk factor for gastric cancer. Other factors include chronic gastritis; older age; male sex; a diet high in salted, smoked, or poorly preserved foods and low in fruits and vegetables; tobacco smoking; Pernicious Anemia; a history of stomach surgery for benign conditions; and a family history of stomach cancer (11, 12).

8. What evidence shows that H. pylori infection causes gastric cancer?

In 2001, a combined analysis of 12 studies of H. pylori and gastric cancer estimated that the risk of non-cardia gastric cancer was nearly six times higher for H. pylori-infected people than for uninfected people (4).
Evidence for an association comes mainly from prospective cohort studies such as the Alpha-tocopherol, Beta-carotene (ATBC) Cancer Prevention Study in Finland, which involved nearly 30,000 male smokers who were aged 50 to 69 years at study enrollment. This study was designed to determine whether daily supplementation with alpha-tocopherol, beta-carotene, or both would reduce the number of lung or other cancers (13). H. pylori infection status was determined by analyzing blood samples obtained from each study participant at the time of enrollment in the study to see if they contained antibodies to the bacterium. Participants were enrolled during 1985 through 1988 and followed through 1999. Comparing subjects who developed gastric cancer with noncancer control subjects, the researchers found that H. pylori-infected individuals had a nearly eightfold increased risk for non-cardia gastric cancer (14).

9. Can treatment to eradicate H. pylori infection reduce gastric cancer rates?

Only a few clinical trials have been conducted to determine whether eradicating H. pylori infection with antimicrobial therapy will reduce the incidence of gastric cancer. The total number of gastric cancers that have developed in those studies is too small to make definitive statements. However, a meta-analysis of six randomized trials suggests that eradication may lead to a modest reduction in gastric cancer risk (15).

10. What is gastric mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) lymphoma?

Gastric MALT lymphoma is a rare type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma that is characterized by the slow multiplication of B lymphocytes, a type of immune cell, in the stomach lining. This cancer represents approximately 12 percent of the extranodal (outside of lymph nodes) non-Hodgkin lymphoma that occurs among men and approximately 18 percent of extranodal non-Hodgkin lymphoma among women (16). During the period 1999–2003, the annual incidence of gastric MALT lymphoma in the United States was about one case for every 100,000 persons in the population.
 Normally, the lining of the stomach lacks lymphoid (immune system) tissue, but development of this tissue is often stimulated in response to colonization of the lining by H. pylori (2). However, only in rare cases does this tissue give rise to MALT lymphoma.

11. What evidence shows that H. pylori infection increases the risk of gastric MALT lymphoma?

Nearly all patients with gastric MALT lymphoma show signs of H. pylori infection, and the risk of developing this tumor is over six times higher in infected people than in uninfected people (17, 18). Furthermore, up to 80 percent of patients with gastric MALT lymphoma achieve complete remission of their tumors after treatment with H. pylori-eradicating antimicrobial therapy (2, 18).

12. What is the evidence that H. pylori infection may reduce the risks of some cancers?

The ATBC cohort study revealed the risk of gastric cardia cancer among H. pylori-infected individuals to be one-third the risk among uninfected individuals (14). Several other studies have also detected an inverse relationship between H. pylori infection and gastric cardia cancer (19–21), although the evidence is not entirely consistent (22). The possibility of an inverse relationship between the bacterium and gastric cardia cancer is supported by the correspondence between the decrease in H. pylori infection rates in Western countries during the past century—the result of improved hygiene and widespread antibiotic use—and the increase in rates of gastric cardia cancer in these same regions.
 Similar epidemiologic evidence suggests that H. pylori infection may be associated with a lower risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma. For example, a large case-control in Sweden showed that the risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma in H. pylori-infected individuals was one-third that of uninfected individuals (21). A meta-analysis of 13 studies, including the Swedish study, found a 45 percent reduction in risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma with H. pylori infection (23). Moreover, as with gastric cardia cancer, dramatic increases in esophageal adenocarcinoma rates in several Western countries parallel the declines in H. pylori infection rates.

13. How might H. pylori infection decrease the risk of some cancers while increasing the risk of other cancers?

Although it is not known for certain how H. pylori infection increases the risk of gastric cancer, some researchers speculate that the long-term presence of an inflammatory response predisposes cells in the stomach lining to become cancerous. This idea is supported by the finding that increased expression of a single cytokine (interleuken-1-beta) in the stomach of transgenic mice causes sporadic gastric inflammation and cancer (24). The increased cell turnover resulting from ongoing cellular damage could increase the likelihood that cells will develop harmful mutations.
 One hypothesis that may explain reduced risks of gastric cardia and esophageal adenocarcinoma in H. pylori-infected individuals relates to the decline in stomach acidity that is often seen after decades of H. pylori colonization. This decline would reduce acid reflux into the esophagus, a major risk factor for adenocarcinomas affecting the upper stomach and esophagus.

14. What is cagA-positive H. pylori and how does it affect the risk of gastric and esophageal cancers?

Some H. pylori bacteria use a needle-like appendage to inject a toxin produced by a gene called cytotoxin-associated gene A (cagA) into the junctions where cells of the stomach lining meet (25, 26). This toxin (known as CagA) alters the structure of stomach cells and allows the bacteria to attach to them more easily. Long-term exposure to the toxin causes chronic inflammation. However, not all strains of H. pylori carry the cagA gene; those that do are classified as cagA-positive.
 Epidemiologic evidence suggests that infection with cagA-positive strains is especially associated with an increased risk of non-cardia gastric cancer and with reduced risks of gastric cardia cancer and esophageal adenocarcinoma. For example, a meta-analysis of 16 case-control studies conducted around the world showed that individuals infected with cagA-positive H. pylori had twice the risk of non-cardia gastric cancer than individuals infected with cagA-negative H. pylori (27). Conversely, a case-control study conducted in Sweden found that people infected with cagA-positive H. pylori had a statistically significantly reduced risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma (21). Similarly, another case-control study conducted in the United States found that infection with cagA-positive H. pylori was associated with a reduced risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma and gastric cardia cancer combined, but that infection with cagA-negative strains was not associated with risk (28).
Recent research has suggested a potential mechanism by which CagA could contribute to gastric carcinogenesis. In three studies, infection with CagA-positive H. pylori was associated with inactivation of tumor suppressor proteins, including p53 (29–31).

15. Is H. pylori infection associated with any other cancer?

A possible association between H. pylori infection and pancreatic cancer was suggested by several small epidemiology studies that found an increased risk of pancreatic cancer among patients who had been treated with surgery for peptic ulcer disease up to 20 years earlier. Furthermore, in the ATBC cohort study, individuals infected with H. pylori at the time of study enrollment were approximately twice as likely to develop pancreatic cancer as those without the infection (32). However, this association between H. pylori infection and pancreatic cancer was not confirmed in another study that involved 128,992 adults. When the participants who developed pancreatic cancer were compared with control subjects, no evidence was found that individuals infected with H. pylori at study enrollment were more likely to develop pancreatic cancer than those who were not infected (33).

16. Who should seek diagnosis and treatment of an H. pylori infection?

According to the CDC, people who have active gastric or duodenal ulcers or a documented history of ulcers should be tested for H. pylori, and, if they are infected, should be treated. (More information is available on the CDC Web site.) Testing for and treating H. pylori infection is also recommended after resection of early gastric cancer and for low-grade gastric MALT lymphoma. However, most experts agree that the available evidence does not support widespread testing for and eradication of H. pylori infection.

information source: National Cancer Institute http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/h-pylori-cancer

Related NCI materials and Web pages:

• What You Need To Know About™ Cancer: 
(http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/wyntk/cancer)

• What You Need To Know About™ Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: 
(http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/wyntk/non-hodgkin-lymphoma)

• What You Need To Know About™ Stomach Cancer: 
(http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/wyntk/stomach)

• Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Home Page: 
(http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/types/non-hodgkins-lymphoma)

• Stomach (Gastric) Cancer Home Page: 
(http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/types/stomach)

More information from the National Cancer Institute:

We offer comprehensive research-based information for patients and their families, health professionals, cancer researchers, advocates, and the public.

• Call NCI’s Cancer Information Service at 1–800–4–CANCER (1–800–422–6237)

• Visit us at http://www.cancer.gov or http://www.cancer.gov/espanol

• Chat using LiveHelp, NCI’s instant messaging service, at http://www.cancer.gov/livehelp

• E-mail us at cancergovstaff@mail.nih.gov

• Order publications at http://www.cancer.gov/publications or by calling: 1–800–4–CANCER

• Get help with quitting smoking at 1–877–44U–QUIT (1–877–448–7848)

Babes In Arms

I ask you, "What is wrong in this picture?" Look closely. How many of you know that the loose blankets and the pillow are FAR MORE DANGEROUS to that baby's life than the knife?

By Edward Lovett | ABC News – Tue, Nov 15, 2011

Milwaukee Runs Provocative Ads To Wake Parents Up to Dangers of Co-Sleeping

As reported in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the campaign, unveiled last Wednesday, includes two posters of a baby lying in a bed next to a large knife. In one, the baby is white; in the other, the baby is black. “YOUR BABY SLEEPING NEXT TO YOU CAN BE JUST AS DANGEROUS,” the copy blares.

The second-leading cause of infant mortality in Milwaukee is SIDS, or sudden infant death syndrome, which often results from ”unsafe sleep,” according to the health department’s website. A form of “unsafe sleep” is bed-sharing with parents.

“Is it shocking? Is it provocative?” asked Bevan Baker, the city’s commissioner of health, according to the Journal Sentinel. ”Yes. But what is even more shocking and provocative is that 30 developed and underdeveloped countries have better [infant death] rates than Milwaukee.”

I agree wholeheartedly with co-sleeping mom Christie Haskell, as she notes on Cafe Mom's blog: The Stir, "... health officials would be better off telling parents how to safely co-sleep, rather than demonizing parents who do it as a deliberate choice with plenty of safety precautions. "

I am an avid supporter of ATTACHMENT PARENTING, and co-sleeping is a big part of this very nurturing parenting style. And, I have researched the reported deaths attributed to co-sleeping. I find it more than just a little odd that suffocating deaths rarely occur in other cultures (those "30 developed and underdeveloped countries" mentioned in the Milwaukee newspaper article, perhaps?) where co-sleeping is the norm rather than the exception.

During my research I learned many things that makes co-sleeping safe. I discovered swaddling often plays a part. But, of course, moderation is the key. I do not recommend swaddling an infant nightly. If you sneak out of bed to go pee, check on other children, etc, and your infant is swaddled they will not "root" towards the nearest pillow or other person sleeping in your bed. Pillows and loose blankets ARE very dangerous for babies. A 2 week old or a 2 month old baby WILL root, by scooting towards the pillows or another human body, once the person they are sleeping up against leaves. Most often they do this without ever waking up. I have observed this firsthand with my own and the babies of many of my friends.

A very good article that explains physiologically, this migratory instinct, is: The Science of Mother Love, by Cori Young, found at: http://mothering.com/parenting/the-science-of-mother-love

Once my children were no longer swaddled (around 2 or 3 months of age) I used a wicker bassinet placed next to the bed to lay them in each time I got out of bed, or I plopped them into their cocoon-like sling and took them with me. This practice is called, "babywearing."

I did not ever leave my baby unattended in the family bed (we had a king-sized water bed as our family bed for over 10 years). I firmly believe co-sleeping is a process, to be molded and shaped to fit the needs of the family. There is no right or wrong way, as long as SAFETY is first. One of the issues I have with the Milwaukee ad campaign is that it does not teach parents how to keep babies safe while they sleep. It just dictates: do not let your baby sleep in your bad with you. Pillows and loose blankets in cribs are just as dangerous as those in the parents' bed! And what about the parent who snuggles a baby to sleep and then lays the baby on the couch, while they hop up to go do the dishes or take a shower? The baby is in danger of scooting/migrating under the back or arm cushions and suffocating.

The most important thing I learned from other cultures is that the first nine months the baby is inside the womb, and the second nine months the baby should be in someone's arms: mother, father, or grandparent. This is called the "babes in arms" stage of development. I used this method of parenting and can attest to the fact that the bonding that occurs keeps babies safe while co-sleeping.

According to neurologist Richard Restak, MD, “Physical holding and carrying of the infant turns out to be the most important factor responsible for the infant’s normal mental and social development.” Neural and neuroendocrine functions underlying emotional behaviors are responsive to early experiences in enduring ways. For example, the anthropologist Margaret Mead found in her research that the most violent tribes were the ones that withheld touch in infancy.

When a baby is in your arms or up against your body in a sling the first 9 months of age, you become so accustomed to their rhythms that you can know when they are about to pee or poop before they do it. There is a growing movement in this country of couples who go to classes called EC: Elimination Communication, to learn this symbiotic relationship with their babies. Of course, parents in Africa, India, Norway, Peru, etc do not need classes to know about this, as it is indigenous to their culture! They do not use diapers, either.

The Milwaukee ad campaign and the whole controversy of co-sleeping reminds me of the Measles scare in TX in 1991. I had just moved back to TX after living 11 years on the West Coast. The newspaper reported there had been 69 cases of, and 4 deaths from, measles in TX the previous year. What was left out of the report was that all but one of the children who contracted the disease had been FULLY immunized against measles. And, according to the Centers for Disease Control, the four who died did not die because they had measles, but of dehydration! Newspaper stories often do not give all the pertinent information that could help parents make informed choices. And advertising campaigns, such as the baby in bed with a sharp knife, use scare tactics instead of informing parents of ways to keep babies safe.

I realize not all parents can become confident and comfortable co-sleeping their babies, but I hope they realize that putting a baby in a crib, isolated in their nursery, away from the center of activity of the family is a modern-day Western culture tradition. And, it is not the best thing for the baby for a myriad of practical reasons.

If you do not choose to co-sleep your baby, I urge you to consider having them close by, perhaps in a cradle beside your bed.

If you wish to learn more about attachment parenting, I recommend the following articles.

• Compassionate Connection http://mothering.com/parenting/compassionate-connection
• Mothering Special Report: Attachment Parenting http://mothering.com/parenting/special-topic-page-attachment-parenting

If you wish to learn more about co-sleeping, I recommend the following articles.

• Cosleeping: Real Men Sleep With Their Kids http://mothering.com/parenting/real-men-sleep-with-their-kids
• Bed of Roses http://mothering.com/parenting/bed-of-roses
• Three in a Bed http://mothering.com/parenting/three-in-a-bed
• Pillow Talk http://mothering.com/parenting/pillow-talk

Ear Infections, Antibiotics, and Hearing Loss

From 3 months of age to 4 years of age, Sarah was put on antibiotics 12 times for ear infections. None of the doctors could tell me, definitively, why she was subject to recurrent ear infections.

They could determine what was happening but not why. The body produces fluid and mucus to protect mucus membranes from absorbing allergens. This fluid, when it forms in the Eustachian Tubes, and middle and/or inner ear chambers, is the medium that fosters the bacteria resulting in ear infections. In an attempt to dry up some of this excess fluid, Sarah was on decongestants constantly.

Since the shape of a baby's head is round, this makes the Eustachian Tubes horizontal. As they become a toddler, their face elongates, which makes the Eustachian Tubes become slanted downwards, and gravity keeps fluid draining down the back of their throat, somewhat reducing fluid pooling in the ear chambers. This does not get rid of the problem, but provides a margin of help.

She was given a hearing test at the age of 9 months and it was discovered that she had "depressed" hearing and a fluctuating hearing loss, meaning the quality of her hearing was sometimes clear and very poor at other times. They put tubes in Sarah's ears at 18 months of age, to help drain off fluid building up in her ears.

The eardrum is a tympanic membrane, which needs to vibrate to absorb sounds which the brain can then interpret for us to know what we are hearing. Scar tissue is Keloid tissue, which is rigid and inflexible. She did not get any other illnesses except ear infections, and with each ear infection, scar tissue was left behind on her eardrum.

Between the ages of 2 and 4, none of the many doctors (ENTs and Audiologists) treating Sarah ever mentioned that there was an on-going, huge controversy in the medical establishment about the efficacy of the use of oral antibiotics for treating ear infections in children! Several more years would pass before I learned of this situation.

Sarah turned 3 years old and had never spoken one single word. Not "momma" or "bye-bye" -- nothing, and had been going to speech therapy for a year. When tested for cognitive ability, she was off the charts. Her comprehension was equal to that of a child twice her age, which defied what the medical establishment knew about the impact of hearing loss on the development of cognitive ability.

They surmised that if a very young child could not hear what was going on around them, they could not gain more than a bare minimum of knowledge of their immediate environment; and certainly not while living a “normal” life at home with their family, unless of course, they were subjected to daily “lessons”. Children naturally learn by mimicking what they see and hear. What they learned from studying Sarah, and others like her, is that a deficiency in one area heightens acuity in another, which they did not know was possible when very young children had a hearing deficiency.

In a miss-guided effort to ward off more hearing loss, more and more often antibiotics were prescribed for Sarah at the first sign of an ear infection. No one offered any information about what was causing her body to produce too much fluid/mucus. Not one doctor ever talked to me about the dangers, or down side, of over-prescribing antibiotics for localized infections, until it was too late.

At the age of 4 she became allergic to penicillin (ANY drug with "cillin" on the end -- as well!) After this, the doctors switched to prescribing newly developed "broad-spectrum" antibiotics for her ear infections, which we would learn years later, damaged her body's NATURAL immune system even further.

As she got older the frequency of ear infections was reduced, but she still suffered with them. When Sarah was seven, and I was pregnant with Adam, I began studying holistic health care options. Nothing, thus far, in allopathic medicine had produced any level of acceptable health for my first child, and I was determined to find a different path before the birth of my second.

I found a pediatrician who supported my Big Three (changes in healthcare options for my children): 1) I opposed routine infant male circumcision, and viewed it as mutilation for cosmetic reasons, and not at all medically necessary for hygiene, 2) I opposed forced immunizations of my children (Sarah received no immunizations after the age of 7 and Adam (b. 1985) and Molly (b. 1988) never received any immunizations, and 3) no more antibiotics prescribed for ear infections.

This new doctor told me that controversy had been brewing for several years, and the prevailing stance (that year) in the medical establishment was that ear infections were a localized infection, and oral antibiotics most likely never reach the site to actually treat the infection. He cited a couple of scientific studies that had recently been completed that clearly showed young children treated for ear infections with antibiotics did not get well any faster than those who received no medications. And, the topical application of cortisone eardrops were the fastest way to reduce the painful swelling which often accompanies ear infections. Learning that this information had been kept from me for years left me unbelievably angry at all the doctors who had treated Sarah.

I began studying the wise woman sage-way of holistic healing. Friends began to lovingly call me “Dr. Martha” as a joke, because I began to take the opposite approach from that of most doctors. The alternative treatments for ear infections that I chose were old-fashioned, country remedies, such as comfrey and sea salt poultices, and hot washcloth compresses, both held over the ear and neck on the affected side, as well as, topical application of a few drops drizzled into the outer ear canal, of warmed extra virgin olive oil infused with the oil from fresh pressed raw garlic. And maybe the most important old fashioned remedy: when your child is sick, keep them within arms reach. Make a sick bed for them on the couch, where you can cuddle them and comfort them often to ease their path to wellness, by making sure they stay hydrated, and are watched constantly to monitor if symptoms worsen.

At the first sign of an ear infection, I also gave Sarah a 6-ounce dose of a medicinal cocktail, comprised of a pesticide free organic carrot, apple, two raw garlic cloves, and a tablespoon of liquid chlorophyll, pulsed together in a juicer.

Our new pediatrician supported my use of holistic remedies, and I cannot tell you how thrilled I was to have found a doctor that I didn’t have to fight with about not treating Sarah’s ear infections with oral antibiotics. It was such a relief to find ONE pediatrician who was willing to think outside the box, and this was in San Francisco, where we had been living for five years, having moved from Fort Worth Texas, just after Sarah’s second birthday. This new pediatrician was also the first doctor to suggest that common household allergens, such as dust mites, pet dander, air fresheners, cleaning products, and even perfumes in laundry detergent used on the clothing of others, quite possibly might be the cause of Sarah’s susceptibility to ear infections.

At his suggestion, I bought a book called, “Nontoxic and Natural,” by Debra Lynn Dadd ** and threw out the cleaning products. Two years later, in 1987 a new book was published by, Robert S. Mendlesohn, M.D.*** a doctor who taught other doctors how to become pediatricians. He was a self-proclaimed “medical heretic” -- just the kind of doctor I was ready for – and the name of his new book was, “How to Have a Healthy Child, In Spite of Your Doctor.”

With all the holistic changes in how we handled our healthcare, by the time Sarah turned 10 years old, she was down to one ear infection every 10 to 12 months. But also, by that age, Sarah had been seen and/or treated by more ENTs and Audiologists than most adults would have seen of all the doctors combined in a lifetime!

In November, 1988, one month before Molly was born, when Sarah was 10 and Adam had just turned 3 years of age, we left our beloved San Francisco, and moved to a new city, where we found a new pediatrician. And, after telling him of Sarah’s history with ear infections, and seemingly intermittently occurring hearing problems, and him being personally interested in my newly developed penchant for holistic healthcare approaches, he offered a possible solution to the mystery of why Sarah got so many ear infections. (Adam had never had even ONE and he was 3 years old.) He said that she might have a dairy sensitivity, and to find out, I should take her off of all dairy and see if the quality of her hearing improves.

That very day, after discussing the idea, Sarah decided she was excited to try this experiment, because she was very tired of struggling with poor hearing. After two days of having no dairy products, Sarah woke up the next morning, and within a few minutes, began yelling very excitedly. She ran up to me, and with a big hug, blurted out through tears, that she could hear EVERYTHING. Even words spoken from another room, which was a first for her!

To really understand the significance of her recovery, one must know the extent of her depressed hearing. If someone cups their hands and places them over their ears and starts having a conversation, the quality of their hearing is depressed. Then, if they turn away from the person speaking, or vice versa, with cupped hands still covering the ears, the person with depressed hearing would not be able to understand all the words being said. That is how bad Sarah’s hearing was on her best days. On her worst, her hearing was like a person with normal hearing having big, thick, pillows over their ears, hearing words only occasionally and random sounds. To serve these times, she had taught herself over the years to rely on reading lips and body language to learn what was going on around her!

Behind the scenes, I had always arranged for Sarah to sit in the front of the classroom, next to the teacher. I’d also informed teachers that Sarah needed to see them when they talked, which was a modification that was very hard to fulfill. Teachers often address students while they write on blackboards, with their backs turned to the class!

After our new discovery that Sarah had a dairy sensitivity, she was able to determine how much dairy she could tolerate in her diet, BEFORE it was the amount that would trigger her body to start producing fluid/mucus build up. After just a few months, she didn’t even have to think about it – her body would reject dairy when it needed to. One time she had eaten only one bite of ice cream and pushed it away, saying she could not eat it. A woman nearby offered to give her a different flavor, thinking she simply did not like that one, until I explained she could only tolerate eating dairy products a couple of times a week, and no more.

Ten years of ear infections left behind some serious scar tissue in Sarah’s ears, which prevents her hearing from ever being of normal quality. But, the improvement in the quality of her hearing was so significant, once she reduced her dairy exposure to a level compatible with her body, it became obvious that the permanent hearing loss was minor by comparison.

Nine out of ten doctors who have ever read Sarah’s medical records steadfastly deny that there is any possible connection to her hearing difficulties and a sensitivity to dairy products. Lactose intolerance STILL appears to be the only medically recognized dairy sensitivity. I no longer find this single-mindedness surprising, but I do loathe it as a clear example of “medical elitism.”

And, most unfortunately, learning the cause of her recurrent ear infections did not mark the end of this unnerving story. Over-exposure to antibiotics to treat ear infections in childhood weakened Sarah’s natural immune system. Not asthmatic as a young child, she began to suffer at the age of 15 with severe, chronic asthma, after being exposed to chemicals in the silkscreen industry over the course of one summer spent in Arkansas living with her Aunt Cindy. The damage to her lungs from that one summer was as great as if she had suffered with asthma all of her life, according to tests done by a top-notch pulmonary specialist when she was 17 years old.

Sarah is still, and always will be, allergic to Penicillin, because she was given it too many times the first 4 years of her life. It is the drug of choice to treat pneumonia, and Sarah, a severe asthmatic even now in her 30s, has been stricken with this illness every year for the past 15-years – and on more than one occasion, twice in the same year. In more than half these instances, Sarah has come very close to dying, because the other antibiotics to which they must resort do not work nearly as well as Penicillin. High doses of steroids are the only thing that has saved her life a dozen times or more, and those drugs damage her immune system further.

My thinking 30 years ago was that a doctor would never do anything to hurt my child, or, not tell me if they were “just guessing” at identifying effective treatment options. I now know better. Ninety percent of the time, ALL doctors are just guessing, but they always present their plan as if it is the ONLY correct treatment.

The last time Sarah was seen by an ENT, and evaluated by an Audiologist, to measure the improvement in the level of her hearing, she was 12 years old. It is a visit that haunts me still, when I remember the rage I felt that day. When pressed for answers, these specialist doctors admitted to me it was common knowledge that the MAIN reason babies and very young children are given antibiotics is to “make the parents feel better and less anxious about their child being sick!”

Sarah’s youngest sibling, ten years her junior, has since birth, been treated with antibiotics maybe twice. I learned my lesson about not questioning the use of antibiotics in children. Too bad Sarah had to pay the price… and is still paying, for my own ignorance, and the medical mistakes made by her trusted doctors, all of whom had taken that oath to “ … first, do no harm.”

I think all would now agree that finding the cause of recurring ear infections as early as possible and making that trigger ineffective is the most prudent course of action, and certainly more safe than recurrent treatment with oral antibiotics. Keep in mind, though, that your doctor is probably NOT going to be the one to initiate such an endeavor. To keep your child as safe as possible, you MUST become your child’s best medical / healthcare advocate. It is imperative that you question everything a doctor wants to do to your child!

I recommend you use websites such as, medlineplus.org at the National Institutes of Health, and that of world renowned holistic MEDICAL doctor, Andrew Weil (drweil.com) among others, to compare information on illnesses and treatment options, BEFORE you go see a doctor, so that you can have knowledgeable conversations and make informed treatment choices.

The two websites above are invaluable, and there is another on which I rely heavily:

http://mothering.com/child-health

“There are many things that you as parents can do to promote the health of your family—it's not always about making trips to the doctor. Changing habits, learning about other holistic approaches and considering alternative and complementary medicines are also wonderful ways you can nurture your family's well-being. Here is Mothering's section on health issues and research.”

In closing, my intent in sharing this story was to educate and inform, and arm young parents with knowledge they may not get otherwise, in an effort to help better protect all children from harm. No child should have to endure what happened to Sarah.

--Martha Bee

** “Toxic Free” (Penguin) In her new book, “Toxic Free,” consumer advocate Debra Lynn Dadd shines a light on the harmful chemicals and substances hidden in seemingly benign household items — from the dinner dishes (ceramic glazes often include lead, which can cause damage to children’s central nervous systems) to the ironing board cover (probably coated in Teflon, which can give out chemical irritants). “If you are reading this book, it is likely you have toxic chemicals in your body that are making you sick,” she writes. Fortunately, alternatives are often easy to come by. Since permanent-press bed sheets may be coated with a resin that releases vapors of formaldehyde, which can cause insomnia, Dadd suggests buying sheets marked “untreated.” When you see the word “fragrance” listed in ingredients of perfume and aftershave, be very afraid: The term can imply up to 4,000 chemicals, she says, and many of them are harmful. Instead, use perfumes made with natural or essential oils.

Review by: Aaron Leitko, Published: September 5, source: The Washington Post NATIONAL, http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/toxic-free-book-by-debra-dadd-notes-toxins-found-in-household-items/2011/07/27/gIQAQgKD4J_story.html

*** Robert S. Mendelsohn (1926 – 1988) was an American pediatrician who criticized his profession, inveighing against pediatric practice, obstetric orthodoxy and the effect of the preponderance of male obstetricians, and vaccination. He also opposed water fluoridation, coronary bypass surgery, licensing of nutritionists, and the routine use of X-rays.

For 12 years, Mendelsohn was an instructor at Northwestern University Medical College, and was associate professor of pediatrics and community health and preventive medicine at the University of Illinois College of Medicine for another 12 years.

From 1981 to 1982, Mendelsohn was president of the National Health Federation (NHF). He also served as National Director of Project Head Start's Medical Consultation Service (a position he was later forced to resign after criticizing the public school system), and as Chairman of the Medical Licensing Committee of Illinois.

He often spoke at NHF conventions and produced a newsletter and a syndicated newspaper column, both called The People's Doctor. He appeared on over 500 television and radio talk shows. In 1986, the National Nutritional Foods Association gave Mendelsohn its annual Rachel Carson Memorial Award for his "concerns for the protection of the American consumer and health freedoms."

Mendelsohn considered himself a "medical heretic." One of his books charged that "Modern Medicine's treatments for disease are seldom effective, and they're often more dangerous than the diseases they're designed to treat"; that "around ninety percent of surgery is a waste of time, energy, money and life"; and that most hospitals are so loosely run that "murder is even a clear and present danger." (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_S._Mendelsohn )